Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Wednesday 9 February.

COMHAIRLE NAN EILEAN SIAR (ERISKAY CAUSEWAY) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET OFFICE

The Minister was asked—

Rural Affairs

Mr. John Bercow: If she will make a statement on her work to date in the co-ordination of Government policy on rural affairs. [106582]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): I chair the new Cabinet committee on rural affairs. The committee met at the end of last year and will meet again as and when necessary. The committee's role is to co-ordinate the Government's policies affecting rural areas.

Mr. Bercow: Given that farming incomes have fallen by 75 per cent. in three years and, on average, hill farmers earn only £2,000, is it not an abominable insult to countryside dwellers for a Minister who admits ignorance of rural affairs to co-ordinate a policy in which she has no input on behalf of people for whom, as the Prime Minister showed yesterday, he cares little, and will do less?

Marjorie Mowlam: I think the role of co-ordinating between Departments is valuable. I have a love of the countryside and an understanding of agriculture: I was merely pointing out that I do not have a vested interest—from one perspective or the other. What the hon. Gentleman said about the Prime Minister is patently not true. My right hon. Friend made it clear when he spoke to the National Farmers Union yesterday that the Government have given British farmers considerable support: £3.5 billion, with an additional £750 million this year. In addition, the rural programme that we have just put together will modulate some of that money to ensure

that other parts of rural communities are allowed to grow—not merely the environment, but industries in addition to agriculture, and communities as well. That is a much greater degree of interest than was shown by the Conservative Government when they were in power.

Dr. Tony Wright: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Government are considering extending the committee for rural affairs into a fully fledged department for rural affairs, to embrace both agriculture and the countryside? Would not that be a joined-up approach, and would not my right hon. Friend be an admirable person to head such a department?

Marjorie Mowlam: The ministerial network is working with Departments that have an interest in rural affairs to ensure that we maximise the impact of our policies for rural communities. The suitability of a rural department has been discussed on and off many times. There are vested interests on both sides. Obviously, that view will be considered in the rural White Paper, but our current position is that the ministerial network is the most effective and efficient way to move forward.

Mr. Paul Tyler: In addition to the considerable problems that face agriculture, does the Minister recognise that the fate of village sub-post offices poses a huge threat to the viability of rural communities? Will the right hon. Lady take it upon herself—as the only example that we can see of an opportunity for joined-up thinking on the issue—to ensure that her colleagues in the Departments of Social Security, of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and of Trade and Industry talk to one another about this extremely important matter? Clearly, there is a failure of communication at the moment.

Marjorie Mowlam: There is no such failure. The performance and innovation unit is looking into the future of rural post offices and will produce a report. The previous Government did nothing to stop shops and post offices closing—in fact, 32 schools closed every year—but we have put extra money into more schools and buses. We have already offered village post offices and shops a 50 per cent. tax relief because we realise what an important and central focus they are for many rural communities. On the future of the post offices, we are listening and consulting. Departments are talking. We have talked about the matter with many Departments, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Drugs Strategy (North Wales)

Mrs. Betty Williams: If she will make a statement on the Government's drugs strategy in north Wales relating to children and young people. [106583]

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): One of the key aims of the Government's anti-drugs strategy is to help young people resist drug misuse in order to achieve their full potential in society. The others are to help communities protect themselves from anti-social and criminal behaviour; to provide treatment to help people overcome their drug addiction; and to stifle the availability of drugs in Britain.
The National Assembly for Wales will shortly be launching a refocused substance misuse strategy for Wales that will reflect the same aims.

Mrs. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a survey that was conducted by the University of Wales, Bangor, on behalf of the North Wales police, which revealed that more than a third of north Wales school children who have been offered drugs were first approached at the age of 12 or under, and that there is a misconception that rural areas are not affected by drugs?
I am aware that a drugs treatment fund has been identified in Wales, but, in view of the alarming figures among children and young people, do the Government have plans to allocate additional resources for drugs prevention and education?

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right to say that substantial numbers of young people of varying ages throughout Britain are being approached and offered substances such as drugs and alcohol which can be abused. It is important to have a partnership approach. That is why the National Assembly for Wales will be putting forward proposals to work with communities in Wales on an agreed national strategy. Since 1998, substantial new resources have been provided for a three-year programme to tackle drugs misuse, criminal activity, rehabilitation and refocusing people's lives, and education to try to develop awareness among young people of the dangers of abusing substances including drugs. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue and I assure her that drugs issues are a No. 1 priority for the Government.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Following the question of the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), with which I fully agree, will additional resources be made available for the Welsh Assembly? It is not overstating the case to say that primary schools in particular are being targeted by those evil people who sell drugs, and resources are needed to educate children about the evils of drugs. Is there any possibility that further resources will be made available?

Mr. McCartney: The operational strategy for the new drugs proposals for Wales is a matter for the Assembly. However, I clearly said that so far the Government have made available an extra £217 million—to deal with prison issues; to pilot and implement drug treatment and testing orders; for health authorities and local authorities to provide new treatment services; to improve community care services for drugs misusers; and for drug action teams. That is a multi-million pound new investment. The Government are providing significant new resources throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to tackle drugs misuse at its roots in the community. At the same time, we are providing resources for those who suffer mental and physical ill-health as a result of their drug addiction.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: When will the Minister realise that his drugs strategy is not working, in

north Wales or anywhere else? When will a royal commission be set up to examine all aspects of drugs misuse throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady's first comment was a rather cheap shot. I speak with some feeling and gusto when I say that heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine and a range of other highly addictive drugs cause serious physical and mental health problems, destroy individuals' lives, damage and disrupt families and communities, and cause HIV and hepatitis C. We do not need a royal commission to tell us that; it is staring us in the face. What we need is support for the 10-year Government strategy to reduce drug addiction, tackle those on the street who peddle drugs and deal with those suffering from addiction, the victims and their families. Hon. Members should get behind the Government strategy and stop making cheap political points.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: The results of a recent Home Office drugs survey showed that 50 per cent. of 16-year-olds have tried cannabis at least once. Bearing in mind the American experience that a strong anti-drugs campaign with a clear message can deliver results, will the right hon. Gentleman now endorse a "just say no" message and support tougher penalties for drug pushers who target young people outside schools and elsewhere, as advocated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. McCartney: May I deal with the various aspects raised by the hon. Lady? Every sane person in Britain is, like the Government, behind the campaign to encourage people to just say no to drugs and other abuses, but it is not as simple as that. We need to provide our children with the skill to deal with peer-group pressure, which means providing resources at every level of the education system to encourage young people—at a very early age—and teachers to acquire knowledge of how to handle being approached on drug issues in the community, at school or in a family situation. A long-term investment in education and training is needed so that our young people can cope and not only say no but withstand any sustained pressure that is put on them.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of dealing with drug traffickers: those who peddle drugs for profit in the community and the big-time criminals. The Government are currently undertaking a review dealing with the seizure of criminal assets and a report will go to the Prime Minister in the spring. I am responsible for that report. Rest assured that we are four-square on tackling drugs and improving access for Customs and Excise, the police, the courts and others to ensure that we get to the criminals and the heart of organised crime and businesses that are designed to flout the law and import drugs into Britain at every level to abuse our children and our communities. I hope that the House is four-square behind our strategy.

Open Days

Mr. Vernon Coaker: What plans she has to hold more open days in Government Departments. [106584]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): Open days are an important way of making Departments more accessible to people from all backgrounds. The Cabinet Office held its first open day in November last year. Other Departments have already held similar open days; some plan to hold their first later in the year. Achieving a dramatic improvement in diversity is a central plank of our civil service reform programme.

Mr. Coaker: Will my hon. Friend do as much as he can to encourage as many open days as possible in various Departments across government? Students attended the Foreign Office's many recent open days and they are a good way of encouraging diversity so that people from a wider variety of backgrounds enter the civil service.

Mr. Stringer: My hon. Friend is quite right: open days are a way of attracting people from all backgrounds, including ethnic backgrounds, into the civil service. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, GCHQ and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are to hold open days later this year and it is important to get across the fact that a person does not have to be a white male middle-class graduate of Oxford or Cambridge to get into the civil service.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Will taxpayers be able to visit Departments on those open days to see whether they are getting value for money for the extra £4 million that the Government are squandering on armies of special advisers?

Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about special advisers. I think what he objects to is the fact that the Government are putting forward their policies effectively. If he looks at the figures on expenditure at the centre of government, he will find that in real terms there has been an overall reduction of 5 per cent.

Truancy

Mrs. Sylvia Heal: What progress is being made in implementing the social exclusion unit's report on truancy. [106586]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): Good progress is being made in implementing the social exclusion unit's report and, as part of that process, the Department for Education and Employment recently launched "Tackling Truancy Together" for consultation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards and I are monitoring progress within and across Departments in Whitehall and beyond.

Mrs. Heal: I welcome the action that my right hon. Friend and her ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment are taking to tackle truancy and exclusion, as about 1 million children are truanting and many thousands are excluded. There is no doubt that more has to be done to cut those numbers, so I am delighted that a new unit is to be established at Britannia school in Rowley Regis to tackle that very problem. The social exclusion unit has set out an action

plan to reduce those numbers by a third by 2002. Is my right hon. Friend confident that we can meet that ambitious target?

Marjorie Mowlam: As chair of the ministerial network that exists to ensure that we meet our targets by working with Ministers across Departments, I firmly believe that we have a chance.
We have put an extra £500 million into the policy, so there is money "on the ground"—as with the unit that has been established in the school that my hon. Friend mentioned. We have introduced guidelines to help schools deal with truancy, and in April we will introduce a dowry system that will give children who repeatedly truant, or are socially excluded, grants to enable them to attend schools that will provide for their needs.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am glad that the right hon. Lady has taken responsibility for the social exclusion unit, thus ensuring that there is leadership at Cabinet level. I hope, however, that she will pay particular attention to the role of child mental health services in truancy cases. Truancy may be the beginning of a delinquent career, but it may also be an indication that things are seriously wrong for a child. There is a real problem here in regard to joined-up government—the problem of ensuring that the Home Office, education services and social services jointly fund child mental health provision. Will the right hon. Lady consider that herself, and also, perhaps, speak to representatives of Young Minds, which provides some of the most pioneering and effective services?

Marjorie Mowlam: I know of the right hon. Lady's interest in the matter. Let me reassure her that child mental health will be one of our considerations when a system is established—either in the form of units, or in another form that will enable us to deal with the specific question of educational health in schools—for repeated truants, and kids who have been excluded from school. That system will be cross-departmental.
As the right hon. Lady will know from experience, such a system will be particularly hard to achieve, but we think that the cross-departmental work that we are currently doing is quite successful in establishing joined-up policy-making. We hope that, following some of our submissions to the spending review body, we may even secure joined-up money, which would encourage still better co-operation. We are doing all that we can to bring that about through our links with local partnerships, local authorities, the voluntary sector and health departments.

News Releases

Mr. Norman Baker: If she will make a statement on her role in co-ordinating news releases from different Departments. [106587]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has no role in co-ordinating news releases from other Departments.

Mr. Baker: That is interesting. Is the Minister aware that last year the Government issued 13,500 press


releases—one every nine minutes? What was the cost to the public purse? Have there been any objections to the practice in the Civil Service? Does that explain why 16 out of 17 heads of information in the Civil Service have been replaced since the Government came to power? Perhaps the Government prefer heads of disinformation.

Mr. Stringer: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Liberal policy is that we should not tell the people of this country what the Government are doing? That is how it sounded. As for changing heads of the information service, if the hon. Gentleman looks back to the period between 1979 and 1981 he will learn that 13 departmental heads of information changed over that time. It is not unusual for heads of information to change when Ministers change.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, while the Cabinet Office has no role in co-ordinating the publication of news releases, the present Government have had more good news to release in two and a half years than the last Government had in 18?

Mr. Stringer: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The basic policy of both Opposition parties is not to want the Government to spend money on informing people of rights that they—the Conservative party and the Liberal party—have opposed on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister agree that civil servants should remain neutral and should not be politicised? If so, how does he reconcile that position with the recent statement by the head of attack at Millbank, the headquarters of the Labour party, to the effect that it has regular contacts with No. 10's press office?

Mr. Stringer: It is clearly the Government's policy that the civil service will retain, and does retain, its impartiality and integrity. The existence of special advisers whose responsibility it is to explain Government policy in a political context helps to retain the impartiality of the civil service.

Online Government Services

Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions she has had with internet service providers on the provision of Government services online. [106588]

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): I began last year a series of quarterly meetings with a range of private sector colleagues, including internet service providers, about information age government services. This is in line with our strategy of: creating a platform of integrated service delivery, which would support a wide range of access technologies and partnerships with local government and the private sector; using the Government secure intranet to link up public servants and also establish how local authorities can interface with it; a common policy on authentication, smartcards and website navigation; and a strategic approach to data standards.

Miss McIntosh: Fresh from meeting Bill Gates last year, the Prime Minister said that Britain could lead the

world in exploiting e-commerce. That is clearly not an ambition shared by the Home Office. Will the Minister confirm that 11 of 17 Home Office information technology projects have not been or will not be completed in time? If so, why, and what measures will the Minister and the Government take to improve their appalling IT record in this area?

Mr. McCartney: First, the vast majority of IT projects that have run into trouble, with which the Government are dealing, were procured under the previous Conservative Government. The Labour Government have had to clear up the mess that was left behind for us. Secondly, 55 per cent. of businesses in Britain are already using e-commerce because of the Government's activity. That is the highest use level in Europe. However, we will do more. We will ensure that in both the private and public sectors we will be leaders in e-commerce.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: My right hon. Friend will know that when we were dealing with the Y2K issue, we eventually published a sort of league table setting out where each Department was. Does he intend to do the same in regard to the electronic delivery performance of each Department?

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce and myself and the e-envoy are responsible for ensuring that Departments reach the Government's targets. I assure my hon. Friend that all three of us are working with the Departments to ensure that they meet the target of 100 per cent. capability by the year 2008.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Government are keen on targets and have set one to ensure that 25 per cent. of dealings with government involve the electronic delivery of services by 2002. Will the Minister therefore explain why only 3 per cent. of such dealings were through the internet in 1999, and why the Government's figures project only 12 per cent. in 2002?

Mr. McCartney: We are the first Government to set any targets in this area. The previous Government did nothing to establish a platform for the introduction of e-commerce. I made it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) that the Government have targets and that we intend to reach them. We have the structures, policies and finance in place, and we will get training in place. We have the political leadership to do that.

Mr. Lansley: I have made it clear to the Minister that the Government admit that they will not reach their target.
With the advent of digital technology, many people will be hoping to use interactive television, which will be user-friendly to many who do not have personal computers. The Government's figures suggest that 0 per cent. of government dealings with the public will be by interactive television by 2002. Why so poor a performance?

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep last week—or else trying to keep his job in the shadow Cabinet. If he had been awake, he would have


noted that we placed in the public domain a digital television strategy for the provision of government services. The hon. Gentleman is well behind the game. He should start listening, and catching up with what the Government are doing.

Mr. Peter Bradley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the internet—and IT in general—offers the best means of restoring to isolated rural communities the services that they lost under the previous Government, and of providing many services that they have not hitherto enjoyed? Does he further agree that the provision of such services has the additional merit of reducing dependence on both public transport and the private car, because they reduce the need to travel? Will he ensure that the rural White Paper to be published later this year will place due emphasis on this issue?

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. One of the key strategies that the Government have implemented was designed to save the rural post office network from privatisation by the Tories. That will mean hundreds of millions of pounds of new investment and will provide a technology platform for post offices in rural areas and for rural communities. At last, the rural community has a Government who battle for it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Piara S. Khabra: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Mr. Khabra: May I take the opportunity to thank the Prime Minister for coming to my constituency, accompanied by the Deputy Prime Minister, to celebrate Labour's first 1,000 days in power?
My question concerns the economy. The Prime Minister is aware that, between 1990 and 1992, 140,000 businesses failed and 188,000 mortgage repossessions took place. That was due to the dogma of Tory party politics. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is putting his question.

Mr. Khabra: Will the Prime Minister outline how Labour is helping small businesses and business in the community to prosper across the country and in my constituency?

The Prime Minister: We have reduced small business tax, but, most important, we have produced stability in economic management after the boom and bust of the Conservative years, and there are 800,000 more jobs in

the economy since this Government came to power. We have also introduced a minimum wage, a working families tax credit and Bank of England independence. The Conservative party would scrap every single one of those measures. Indeed, today, the new shadow Chancellor has recommitted himself to the tax guarantee and said that we are spending too much money, so let us hear no more complaints from Conservatives about schools and hospitals. We are spending more. They would spend less.

Mr. William Hague: May I first express, as we have not done so in the House yet this week, our horror at last Friday's attack on the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) and our deep sadness, which will be felt across the whole House, at the death of Andrew Pennington? We send our condolences to his family and our good wishes to the hon. Gentleman for a speedy return.
Is the Prime Minister aware that, since he took office, the backlog of asylum seekers has doubled? Is he aware that some councils now spend more on bogus asylum seekers than on looking after elderly people? Is he aware that the Home Secretary said in 1996 that, if a Labour Government did not speed up applications, they "shall have failed"? Will the Prime Minister now confirm that the Home Secretary has failed?

The Prime Minister: I concur entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) and Andrew Pennington. We all join in sending our very best wishes and our sympathy to the hon. Gentleman and our profound condolences to the family of Mr. Pennington.
On the Home Secretary's record, of course, it is precisely for that reason that we have introduced the new asylum provisions. That will mean that we can speed up the asylum seekers cases. We can distinguish better between the bogus and the non-bogus cases. Of course, we inherited a system that was a complete mess. As a result of our legislation, in many ways opposed by the right hon. Gentleman's party, we can now clean it up.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has been there for three years now and it is always promises. The cheque is always in the post, or going to be in the post. It is not just us saying that. The Labour majority on the Public Accounts Committee says that the Government are
not living up to their responsibility
and that the response of the Home Office is,
to say the least, inadequate.
He should know that, in the last full year of a Conservative Government, the number of asylum seekers fell by 30 per cent. [Interruption.] Oh, some of the figures are arriving. Let us hope that they are the right figures. Let us hope that they show that, since he has been in office, the number has increased by 140 per cent. It follows decision after decision by the Government to weaken asylum policies.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House the latest figures—now that the Home Secretary has started passing him figures—on what proportion of people served orders to leave the country actually left the country in the past year?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that we have taken no action on asylum. As a result of the measures that we have introduced, we shall be able to shorten dramatically the length of time that it takes to deal with asylum cases. We know the reasons why the number of asylum cases has increased. Most of the cases that are coming in are from countries such as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, providing a very good reason why the numbers have risen in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe. There was also a time under the previous Government when asylum seeker applications rose dramatically.
The only way of dealing with it is to have in place a proper, fast and effective way of dealing with those cases, which is precisely what we have done. We have also changed—this is important—the benefit rules for asylum seekers. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Conservative Members opposed our changing those rules, despite having complained about them. If we had adopted the amendments tabled to the Immigration and Asylum Act by Conservative Members, we would be paying out £500 million more.

Mr. Hague: The reason why the numbers have increased is that the Prime Minister has made the United Kingdom a soft touch for asylum seekers—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it is. The Prime Minister clearly does not know the numbers, but he ought to, because it is a national scandal. In the past year, 19,000 people were served orders to leave the country, but 6,800 actually did so. More than two thirds of the people whom he thinks should be deported are not deported.
So for the Prime Minister it is more promises—the cheque is in the post. The Government have reversed deportation decisions taken by the previous Government. They have abolished the fast track list and failed to enforce our controls on illegal working. On this issue as on so much else, he is all talk—no delivery.

The Prime Minister: It is completely untrue to say that we have dismantled the controls on immigration and asylum, because we have been tightening them up. We have also had to do so in the face of opposition from Conservative Members. A moment ago, I mentioned the benefit rules. I should mention another provision that Conservative Members have opposed—the provision that fines lorry drivers who bring illegal asylum seekers into the country. The right hon. Gentleman opposed that measure. Therefore, let us not have it from him that we inherited a perfect situation, because we inherited a backlog of tens of thousands of cases—[Interruption.] Yes, because the system was at fault.
Our Government reformed the system. From April 2000, the new system will be in place, with new rules on benefit and new holding centres being opened up, so that claims can processed quickly and we shall be able to get the numbers back down again. Those are the measures that we have introduced, clearing up the mess that the right hon. Gentleman left us.

Mr. Frank Roy: Is the Prime Minister aware that, after its decontamination, the former Ravenscraig steel site in my constituency is now ready for rebuilding? I remind the House that the workers at that steel site felt betrayed and abandoned by the former, Conservative Government. Will the Prime Minister accept

from me, a former steelworker, an invi1tation to come and see for himself how Ravenscraig is rising from the ashes of its industrial betrayal?

The Prime Minister: That is great news. I know that my hon. Friend worked at the Ravenscraig steelworks for 14 years, and it is good to see that regeneration project under way. People will of course remember that the previous Government closed the steelworks complex, with the loss of 1,200 jobs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Boring."] It was not boring for the 1,200 workers who lost their jobs. However, it will be a better and more interesting life for those who will now be able to work there again.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister, the leader of the Conservative party and many others from both sides of the House who, over the past few days, have expressed their condolences for the dreadful murder of Councillor Andrew Pennington and the vicious assault on my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). Those sentiments have been much appreciated. I am sure that we all agree that nothing so outrageous will cause any of us in any party or any part of the country to undermine the vital link with our constituents of enabling them to come to see us.
As the rural agenda is to the forefront this week, in advance of the Prime Minister's visit to the south-west tomorrow, and given the importance of post offices to rural communities, will he tell us how many rural post offices closed during the first two years of his Administration?

The Prime Minister: We have given a strong commitment to rural post offices. The previous Government were committed to privatising the Post Office. That is not our policy. As a result of the measures that have been announced, we shall be able to protect rural post offices in future.

Mr. Kennedy: The House of Commons Library figure is 476. The chief executive officer of the Post Office predicts that, if the Postal Services Bill is passed, a further 8,000 post offices will close. That is almost half the national network. Will the Prime Minister rethink the legislation and consider the possibility of subsidy? If he does not and that many post offices go, it will be a further nail in the coffin for villages and rural communities throughout the land.

The Prime Minister: The figure of 8,000 is wrong for the reasons that I have just given. In the Bill, we are ensuring that we protect rural post offices. So that everyone understands, let me explain the issue. The Department of Social Security and the Benefits Agency will move to paying all benefits via personal bank accounts. It is expected that, by then, the Post Office will have extended its arrangements with the banks to offer a range of banking facilities on an agency basis. That will enable people to continue to collect their benefits in cash. It would be very foolish—I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting this—not to modernise the way in which benefits are paid. We should surely modernise so that benefits are paid into bank accounts for people who want that, but we shall make arrangements for those who do not want that to enable them to continue


collecting their benefits in cash. That is a sensible arrangement. Now that the technology exists, it would be foolish to leave post offices to carry on paying benefits in the same old way. That would cost a lot more money. As for further subsidies, it is time that the Liberal Democrats stopped asking for more money to be spent on everything without making a single suggestion as to where that money will come from.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for reminding the House and the country that the great divide between Labour and the Tories is that Labour will rebuild the national health service while the Tories would just privatise it. When he is considering the specific measures that will allow Labour to close the gap between Britain's health spending and the European average, will he look at the artificial ceiling on national insurance contributions and a more progressive system of corporate tax contributions, which are far lower in Britain than in most of our European counterparts? Will he also reflect on whether the current public mood would prefer us to put a penny into health rather than taking it off tax?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has a lot of support from somewhere. I do not agree with him on tax. We were right to cut corporation tax. However, he is entirely right to say that the Conservatives have made a big strategic decision on the health service. I do not know whether anyone has read today's "Clear Blue Water" pamphlet, but it spells out starkly that their policy is to drive large numbers of people out of the health service and to make them take out private medical insurance. For those over 65, it will cost £60 to £80 a week to get private medical insurance. The only way to tackle the problem is our way: more hospital buildings, more nurses and doctors into the health service and more facilities. We are doing all that. The way to do it is to modernise the national health service, not to privatise it.

Sir David Madel: Is the Prime Minister comfortable with what he has read in today's papers concerning the purchase of shares by the editor of the Daily Mirror? Does he agree that it is only fair and reasonable to all concerned that the Press Complaints Commission should examine the issue?

The Prime Minister: I can truthfully say that that is really not a matter for me.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to praise the teaching profession, particularly in light of the generous pay award that teachers received yesterday and their hard work putting into effect the reforms that the Labour Government have introduced in the past two and a half years?

The Prime Minister: Teachers have delivered magnificent results in our primary schools, with the best-ever results in literacy and numeracy. I believe that the performance-related pay proposals are increasingly winning support. It was a good settlement for the teachers, but we are now linking an even greater pay award to

standards and results. That is the right way to do it. Teachers and parents should realise that if the Conservatives had been in government, the money would have been taken back.

Mr. David Prior: British farming and the countryside are in deep crisis. Post offices and village shops are closing. Will the Prime Minister reconsider his plan to pay benefits directly into bank accounts and preserve more rural post offices?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a Conservative Member. His party's plan at the election was to privatise the Post Office. It is absurd that he should stand there and tell me that we should not pay people's benefits in the most effective way. The way to deal with the problems of post offices and others is to modernise the system, but to make sure that we can still allow people to collect their benefits in cash if they so wish. As for the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, I said yesterday that the farming situation is serious, particularly in sectors such as the pig industry. We need a proper long-term strategy; we do not need simply to pay ever-greater subsidies because we cannot do that. As for the countryside, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that, under this Government, the policy of closing rural schools has been put in reverse.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: In view of the forthcoming elections and the by-elections in Wales and Scotland, will my right hon. Friend tell us what lessons the Government have learned from the people of Falkirk, West, who elected their Member of the Scottish Parliament with the biggest vote, and the biggest majority, in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: First, it is good to see the hon. Gentleman back again. I remind him that it was this Labour Government who delivered devolution to the people. Many previous political parties—indeed, previous Labour parties—promised devolution. We delivered it. We are also delivering the working families tax credit, the minimum wage and the new deal, all of which have helped people in his constituency. I believe that that is one reason why people will return loyal Labour Members of Parliament at the next election.

Mr. William Hague: Does the Prime Minister still think, as he has claimed on various occasions, that it would be "fatuous", "absurd" and "daft" to rule out joining the euro in the next Parliament?

The Prime Minister: Of course I do. Our policy remains exactly the same: to keep the option open and determine it according to the British national interest. That is a more sensible position than the right hon. Gentleman's position, which I thought I had described as fatuous. It was fatuous of him to say that he would oppose it as a matter of principle for five years, but consider it as a matter of principle in the sixth year.

Mr. Hague: The president of the European Central bank says that our economy is out of step. He said:
if ever the UK decides to join, you are talking about years from today".


The former Labour Foreign Secretary, Lord Owen, said:
the time has come to rule out UK membership … for the next Parliament".
Is that not now the view of the sensible mainstream majority of the country? In addition to his previous answer, can the Prime Minister confirm that he will fight the next election determined to keep open the option of joining the euro in the next Parliament?

The Prime Minister: Of course—because we have set out the policies; I repeated them last Friday. The decision is simply this: there are those people who say that we should join the euro now, regardless of the economic conditions; then, there are those people, such as the right hon. Gentleman, who say that we should not join the euro, regardless of the economic conditions. I happen to believe that the sensible test is British jobs, British industry and British investment.
To rule out the euro in the next Parliament—hon. Members should remember that the final decision lies with the people in a referendum—is foolish and backward. I shall have no part of that, either at the next election or in the future. That is the position held by the right hon. Gentleman and that is the difference between us.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to quote sensible mainstream people, there were many people in his own party who used to be in the mainstream but are not there now, because the mainstream of his party is now the extreme of politics.

Mr. Hague: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his answers. I thank him for making it clear that the only sure way to keep the pound is to support the Conservative party at the next election.

The Prime Minister: There will be a referendum. The choice is with the British people. The question is whether we remove that choice and say, "Even if it is in Britain's interests, even if it's best for jobs and industry and business, then we are not going to give you that choice at all". That is not a sensible position. It is a position born from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has subcontracted his leadership to the extreme right in his party.
Are people such as the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), now outcasts in that party? Is the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) now an outcast in that party? Is the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), also an outcast? Those people are addressing the national interest.
What is in the national interest is to keep the option open, to make the preparation so that we can join if we want to do so, to give the final choice to the British people in a referendum, but not to end up retreating to the sidelines of Europe for the sake of pandering to a few anti-Europeans in the Conservative party.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Is the Prime Minister aware that the statement made by the Secretary of State for Health yesterday, informing the House that he was setting up an independent inquiry into the issues raised by the murders committed by Dr. Shipman, has gone down well in my constituency? People there are understandably still deep in shock as a result of the court's

findings. Will my right hon. Friend use his best endeavours to ensure that the inquiry is thorough and expeditious, and that the Government act speedily on its findings?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I am sure that that will happen. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has been doing to help his constituents to come to terms with a terrible tragedy. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest sympathies to the relatives and friends of those who died.
The vast majority of doctors provide an excellent service for their patients. It is important to say that straight away. This case was highly exceptional. However, we must learn lessons from it. I am sure that the General Medical Council will consider those lessons. We shall learn them through the independent inquiry announced yesterday. We shall act on them; indeed, we are already taking certain measures.
However, it is important that we realise that this was a highly exceptional case. Doctors look after their patients throughout the country. There is no more important relationship than the bond of trust that exists between doctors and their patients. They do a fantastic job for this country. This has been a terrible, tragic and exceptional case. We have to learn lessons from it; we will learn them and we will act on them.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: If the Prime Minister is prepared to speak only equivocally about the future of this country's relationship with the euro, will he at least speak clearly about the consequences of the present strength of the pound, especially on the farming industry, which he addressed yesterday? In these circumstances, how can he fail to respond to the needs of the farming industry by making the compensation payments for the strength of our currency, which he is allowed to make and which have been agreed by the European Union?

The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman has not pointed out to people but I will is that we are paying out hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation for the strength of the pound. However, if we were to make the claim that he is suggesting, 70 per cent. of that money would have to be repaid. In other words, it is a very large public spending commitment. To put the matter into context, we are spending £3.5 billion in agricultural support. That is more than the support that we pay out for the rest of British industry put together. It is important and right that we do so. Agriculture and farming are important to our country and they are, as I accepted yesterday, in a state of crisis. The only way of dealing with that is a long-term plan for the future and not the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives promising that they will end up paying out large sums of money in the short term. That is simply not going to be the answer.
As for the euro, it is not an equivocal position; the tests are quite clear. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to go into the euro tomorrow—

Mr. Maclennan: No.

The Prime Minister: Then the right hon. Gentleman's position is, I suspect, the same as mine. It depends on the


national economic interest. That is the proper test. We are not convergent with the euro at the present time, which is why it would not be sensible to join now, but we have set out the economic conditions. Provided that those economic conditions are met, we will make the recommendation to the British people. We have said that, and we will hold to that.

Mr. Bob Laxton: From time to time, the media pass comment on the ability, and sometimes the inability, of party leaders to control their parliamentary party. Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps an extreme form of control freakery happens when a leader of a party who is unable to control his Back Benchers seeks the assistance of another party leader to help him along the way a little?

The Prime Minister: I cannot quite think to what my hon. Friend is referring. Anyway, it is all fine—the new relationship between the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor is all sorted out, because the shadow Chancellor has described the Leader of the Opposition this morning as "unassailable".

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Have the Government got the courage, decency and honesty to admit that no decommissioning of terrorist weapons has taken place in Northern Ireland? Will they stop putting unfair pressure on the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland and the long-suffering Unionist party and place the blame where it rests—firmly on the shoulders of the terrorists, Sinn Fein-IRA?

The Prime Minister: There has to be decommissioning; there has not been decommissioning. Under the agreement, it is quite clear that decommissioning is supposed to happen. There is no doubt about that at all. I am interested, as ever, in trying to find a way through this—be under no mistake about that. I know that people, such as the hon. Lady, have not been in favour of much of what we have done in the past two and a half years or indeed of the Good Friday agreement—

Mr. Michael Fabricant: What have you done?

The Prime Minister: What have we done? For all the difficulties in Northern Ireland today, we have the best chance of peace that we have had for generations, there is investment pouring in and there is peace in place that may not be perfect but is a million miles better than what was there before. There has to be decommissioning and, if there is not, there is going to be a serious problem with the process. There is no doubt about that, which is why we are now working day and night to try to overcome that difficulty. I simply say to the hon. Lady that to dismiss

everything that has happened in Northern Ireland is wrong, and we are not putting unfair pressure on people. We are trying to make sure that we find a way through that allows peace and stability for the future. At the heart of this deal in the Good Friday agreement is a good deal for both sides.
Let me explain it once again so that people understand. It is that we end up with the principle of consent accepted by everybody; it is that we end up with the relinquishment of the territorial claim of the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland, which we now have; it is that we have institutions that reach across the communities in Northern Ireland, which we now have; and it is that we have justice and equality for nationalists in Northern Ireland with a recognition of their nationalist aspirations. Decommissioning is part of that and it has to happen, but let no one doubt how far we have come and therefore how important it is to try to save it.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not a fact that, whatever happens in the present difficult circumstances, the Good Friday agreement should remain on the agenda? It was a fine achievement and it is fair to both communities. By refusing even to start decommissioning, is not the IRA playing into the hands of the very people who were opposed to the Good Friday agreement from day 1, who include, I believe, the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)?

The Prime Minister: That is why there has to be progress on that issue. To be blunt, at present there is insufficient progress for General de Chastelain to make the report that needs to be made. However, I hope that we can still bring home to everybody the need to make that progress because of the importance of the peace process. This is the moment when we have to know where we stand on this particular issue, and that is the importance of the discussions that are going on now.
Whatever happens in the next couple of days, I shall carry on working to try to make the peace process take root because, in the communities of Northern Ireland, people desperately want it to work, but not at any price, which is why decommissioning has to be, and is, part of the agreement. Before we dismiss the progress that has been made, we should remind ourselves that, if we do not sort out the peace process and get it moving forward again, there are people who will not grow up in normal conditions and some who will not be alive at all. We should never forget that that is what is at stake.
There are very few things in politics that one can affect profoundly, and this issue is one of them, so we shall carry on working to resolve it as best as we can. There is no doubt that there is a serious problem and, unless there is substantial progress, we will have a serious crisis on our hands. I hope that we can get over that difficulty and that all Members of the House will try to help us to do so.

Points of Order

Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to yesterday's Hansard, where the Secretary of State for Health said:
The GMC must genuinely exist to protect patients. It must be truly accountable and it must be guided at all times by the welfare and safety of patients."—[Official Report, 1 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 908.]
I have today been handed a file of documents that makes serious allegations about a private cosmetic surgeon, who practises at various clinics in the United Kingdom. The former patients and other surgeons who made the allegations consider it an absolute scandal that he is still operating. He has even been described as a psychopath by another doctor. The General Medical Council has received many complaints about him, yet he continues to operate.
I have not named that surgeon today, but I shall have no hesitation in doing so in a week's time unless I hear something that dissuades me. Can we expect a further statement from the Secretary of State for Health about how he intends to ensure that patients are protected against cowboy operators in cosmetic surgery?

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by the Secretary of State that he seeks to make a further statement. I understand what the hon. Lady said about her desire to raise the issue again if no statement is

forthcoming. She is a long-standing Member of the House, and I am sure that she knows her way around and is aware of how to proceed in the matter.

Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have already ruled once this year on the length of Ministers' answers. Today, I had Question 7 on the Order Paper, and I reasonably expected that I would have a chance to ask it. However, the Minister responsible chose to filibuster to prevent the issue of the anti-drugs co-ordinator being raised because he knows very well that the anti-drugs co-ordinator has been the victim of a whispering campaign by the Government, notwithstanding the fact that he receives—

Madam Speaker: Order. What is the problem for me?

Mr. Chope: In my submission, Madam Speaker, this is a serious problem for you. Your responsibility, which you uphold, is to protect the rights of Back Benchers. Is it not reasonable to expect more than six Back-Bench questions to be asked in half an hour?

Madam Speaker: There were more Back-Bench questions, because supplementary questions were asked, but I certainly accept the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's comments. I am disappointed daily by how few questions on the Order Paper are reached—largely because of the number of questions that individual Back Benchers ask and the very long answers that Ministers often give. It appears that I make such a statement every week. I hope that Ministers on the Treasury Bench will heed my words and that the message will go throughout the House to Back Benchers of all parties and to all Departments, wherever they may be throughout London. Thank you very much for raising the matter, Mr. Chope.

Register of Medical Practitioners (Amendment)

Ms Linda Perham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Medical Act 1983 with respect to the restoration of names to the register of medical practitioners; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of my Bill is to give the General Medical Council greater powers to protect patients. Where a doctor is erased from the register for committing a criminal offence or for serious professional misconduct, my Bill would extend the time before that doctor could apply to be restored to the register from 10 months to three years. It would give the GMC the power, after two unsuccessful applications for restoration, to ban that doctor from ever reapplying. It would also require struck-off doctors to show that they have the skill and knowledge to be able to practise again safely.
Those new powers would ensure that a doctor had no chance of being able to practise again for at least three years following erasure. Doctors would then have the right to two chances to convince the GMC that they were rehabilitated and safe to practise. The measure would strengthen sanctions against dangerous doctors, provide better protection, offer public reassurance and send a clear message to the medical profession and patients that erasure from the medical register meant erasure for life, save in the most exceptional circumstances.
I present the Bill in response to a case involving a young woman who died in January 1995 as a result of a doctor failing to identify signs of fatal blood clots. She was Maria Ayling, aged 20—the same as my elder daughter, Caroline. I also have a 19-year-old daughter, Sarah, so the loss of such a young, much loved girl just out of her teens, engaged to be married with the prospect of a long, happy life, has a particular resonance for me.
Maria lived in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who has supported the family in their fight for justice. Maria's father, Eric, has campaigned tirelessly these past five agonising years, right through from the anguish, despair and anger on the day of her death, to the health authority inquiry, which found her general practitioner, Dr. Gosai, in breach of the terms of service for doctors on five counts, to the fight for a High Court decision to hold an inquest, to the GMC hearing that erased Dr. Gosai from the register in 1997, to the organisation of a petition of more than 2,000 signatures to my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in June, to the GMC meeting in November, when the changes that I am proposing were discussed, to this very day. I pay the warmest tribute to Mr. Ayling for his tenacity, determination and commitment to carrying on the battle on Maria's behalf.
Throughout this terrible time, Eric Ayling has been backed in his fight by our excellent, campaigning local newspapers—the Recorder group in Barking and Dagenham, and Redbridge—and especially by Lindsay Jones, news editor of the Barking and Dagenham Recorder and Chris Carter, editor of the Ilford Recorder. They have continued to support Eric in their news coverage and appealed to local people to sign the petition on lengthening the amount of time before an erased doctor may reapply for restoration to the register.
For members of the public, one of the most shocking revelations to arise from the case was that a doctor who has been erased from the medical register can reapply to the GMC for restoration after only 10 months. In a survey for Carlton Television last year, two thirds of people thought that a struck-off doctor was banned from ever working as a doctor again, and three quarters thought that the Government should not allow struck-off doctors ever to practise again. Under the provisions of the Medical Act 1983, doctors who should be struck off for life because of the nature of their offence may apply every 10 months to be allowed back on to the register. Although the GMC can refuse repeated applications from doctors, that right to reapply every 10 months creates a presumption in favour of doctors and makes it far more difficult for the GMC to ban for life.
Although I support the right of doctors to be rehabilitated and to be given the opportunity to demonstrate their fitness to practise, it is crucial that the public should be protected from dangerous doctors, both in the surgery and in hospital. By a tragic coincidence, only two days ago a verdict was reached in the case of Dr. Harold Shipman, an evil man who used his position as a trusted medical practitioner to murder a large number of patients. Members of the public have expressed dismay at the provisions governing doctors who are unfit to practise, which have a negative impact on the medical profession. The Bill's success is important for medical safety and the return of greater confidence in the medical profession.
I am delighted that the Bill has cross-party support, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who is a lay member of the GMC and chair of the Labour Back-Bench health committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, and other members of that Committee. I am also pleased that Sir Donald Irvine, president of the GMC, is able to support the principles of the Bill. In a letter to me of 21 January, he wrote:
I was glad to learn that you will be presenting a bill under the 10 minute rule on 2 February 2000 which would give the GMC greater powers for dealing with applications for restoration.
The issues surrounding the restoration of doctors are a matter of great concern to the public and the medical profession. They were debated at length by our Council in November 1999. Our lay and medical members spoke with one voice in favour of the need for the law to be changed to prevent doctors from applying to be restored for three years following erasure. Members were also fully agreed that the law must reflect a presumption that erased doctors will not be restored in any circumstances unless they can provide compelling evidence that this is in the public interest".
I am further encouraged that the chair of the GMC's committee on professional performance, Professor David John Hatch, who lives in a constituency neighbouring mine, has also offered his support to the Bill.
I should also like to thank the Consumers Association for helping to draft the Bill and for the support that it has given me in providing background information on other reforms that should be considered. Although they are not in the Bill, they should be considered in the broader context.
Last October, the Consumers Association's investigation into GMC procedures for dealing with complaints about doctors uncovered a system that simply does not work for patients. Complainants were overwhelmingly dissatisfied


and the majority questioned the fairness of the procedures. Among several suggestions for change, the association recommended that the proportion of lay to medical members at the GMC be increased to help reduce the imbalance in some procedures. Other recommendations included routinely giving complainants an opportunity to see a doctor's response to their complaint and to have a right of reply, which they currently lack.
I believe that my Bill will go some way toward creating greater confidence in doctors and protecting patients. The relationship between doctors and patients is unique and my Bill will help to preserve the positive aspects of that relationship. The relationship is such that patients are vulnerable to the minority of doctors who abuse their position and are unfit to practise. Everyone who wants patients to be put first and supports enhancing the reputation of doctors should support the Bill. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health that the Government are broadly supportive of the Bill. I hope that the whole House will joining me in wishing it a speedy and successful passage.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Linda Perham, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. Simon Burns, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mrs. Eileen Gordon, Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Simon Hughes, Dr. Howard Stoate and Dr. Jenny Tonge.

REGISTER OF MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (AMENDMENT)

Ms Linda Perham accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Medical Act 1983 with respect to the restoration of names to the register of medical practitioners; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 March, and to be printed [Bill 57].

Opposition Day

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Asylum and Immigration

Madam Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Liberal Democrats.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may assist the House if I explain what I have already explained to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Keen-eyed Members may have spotted the fact that the Government amendment on page 556 of the Order Paper this morning did not relate to the Opposition's motion, but was an amendment that the House passed on 26 October 1999.
It comes down to the expression famously coined by Mr. Peter Preston, the former editor of The Guardian, in a different context: it was down to a "cod fax". As usual, Ministers agreed an appropriate amendment last night but, owing to some infelicity in the arrangements for taking that text off a word processor and faxing it, instead of its coming over to the House, the text of the amendment on 26 October 1999 came over. I hope that that does not in any way inconvenience the right hon. Lady or the hon. Gentleman in their speeches.

Madam Speaker: The Secretary of State is, as always, extremely helpful to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: There is no further point of order. The matter has been dealt with.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government's failure to deal with the widespread abuse of the right to political asylum and its incompetent management of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; notes that the number of asylum applications in 1999 exceeded 71,000, more than double the total inherited by the Government when it came to office, and that the backlog of unprocessed asylum applications has doubled over the past two years to a total of more than 100,000; further notes with great concern the Seventh Report of the Committee of Public Accounts (HC 130) about the Government's mismanagement of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, and the fears of local authorities about the practical difficulties associated with the asylum seekers dispersal scheme; believes that the Government's 'soft touch' policy has helped bring about the current crisis; and calls upon the Government to take urgent action to reduce the backlog of unprocessed immigration and asylum applications, to put in place new and effective systems of enforcement and to ensure the integrity of the United Kingdom's immigration and asylum controls.
As you will take no further points of order, Madam Speaker, may I say that the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister on the Order Paper says it all? When I first saw it, I thought that the Home Secretary was so ashamed of his record on asylum that he was desperately


trying to debate the Mitrokhin archive instead. He now tells us that the amendment in his name and that of the Prime Minister was just an error.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State made it clear to you, Madam Speaker, when he revealed the error—he certainly did not to me—whether he blames himself, his special advisers, his much-blamed officials or his fax machine, but on this occasion he cannot blame the previous Government.
As far as my researches have so far carried me, which is back to 1982, there has never been a single instance of an amendment in the name of the Prime Minister not being selected for debate. The Home Secretary has set a new record, which few of us will be keen to outdo. Presumably, he would sum it up in his usual phrase—as opposed to The Guardian's—as "business as usual" at the Home Office.
Week after week, month after month, we are confronted with the chaotic situation into which the Home Secretary's brief has descended—police numbers down, crime figures up, criminals out of prison early and reoffending when they should be in jail, not to mention the Mitrokhin archive and a host of other gaffes and instances of incompetence, which the Government were so eager to debate today.
We shall concentrate on the Home Secretary's most visible and devastating failure to date. It is devastating not only to his and the Government's rapidly declining reputation, but to the people of Britain, especially the people of Kent, and, above all, to the genuine asylum seekers who need a settled haven quickly. The facts speak for themselves. The number of applications for political asylum in the United Kingdom was less than 30,000 in our last full year of office. Three years later, in the third year of a Labour Government, the figure is 71,000—an increase of 130 per cent. Yet the latest figures show that nearly 80 per cent. of applications are unfounded and thus rejected. None of that is coincidence.
The Home Secretary has only himself to blame. He promised an amnesty for thousands of asylum seekers, regardless of the merits of their cases. That was his decision. The Government deliberately abandoned the checks on illegal working that we introduced in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. Again, that was his decision.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Not true.

Miss Widdecombe: The Minister claims that that is not true, but I refer her to the debate during which we considered the Government's measures. A previous Minister of State had to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the decision not to implement our measures against illegal working was wrong. I suggest that the Minister re-read the debate; perhaps it will give her some idea of her Government's proposals.

Mrs. Roche: The right hon. Lady is absolutely wrong. We have not dismantled any of the controls that she mentioned. Indeed, from time to time, I receive submissions from officials about them. As to the implementation of the prohibition on employing people who are here illegally, this Administration, unlike hers, have issued warnings.

Miss Widdecombe: When the Minister was in opposition, she said that our measures against employers

who took on illegal workers without having made due checks were a burden on business, which a Labour Government would not implement. Only last summer, when challenged at the Dispatch Box, a previous Minister of State admitted that the Government were wrong, and that they were reverting to measures that they may not have dismantled, but did not implement.
The Government also promised to abolish the list of safe countries of origin. They reversed high-profile deportation decisions that we had made. They even returned someone who had already left the country. They also abolished the primary purpose rule. The message was loud and clear: Britain was once again a soft touch. The message, the decisions and the responsibility were all the Home Secretary's.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I am sorry that I cannot attend the whole debate, but I have to attend a Public Accounts Committee hearing on entry clearance. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with asylum applications soaring and chaos in the immigration case load, it beggars belief that Ministers decided to introduce a new computer system and move the immigration and nationality directorate offices?

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. I shall comment on that later. I hope that my hon. Friend will not have left for the Public Accounts Committee meeting by then.
Thousands of asylum seekers whose applications have been refused are still here. Will the Home Secretary confirm that more than 70,000 asylum seekers a year come to the United Kingdom, that up to 80 per cent. of applications are rejected, but that the immigration and nationality directorate's targets envisage only approximately 10 per cent. of those people leaving the country? Will he further confirm that even that paltry figure is not being met? Does not that mean that the system is in growing chaos? Is it surprising that so many bogus applicants come when they know that they will not be removed even when the due processes have rejected their claims?
That is not all. The backlog of unprocessed asylum applications now stands at more than 100,000. Can the Home Secretary confirm that that is double the number that Labour inherited on coming to office and that last year, the number of asylum claims processed fell to fewer than 100,000 a month as a result of what I can only describe to my hon. Friend as the Government's totally barmy decision to reorganise and relocate the immigration and nationality directorate at the same time as it was introducing a new computer system?

Dr. Brian Iddon: Why did the right hon. Lady sanction cutting 1,200 staff in the directorate before she found out whether the new computer, which she ordered, was efficient? The Public Accounts Committee says that it is not.

Miss Widdecombe: I should have thought that even a child could have worked out—

Mr. Straw: Answer.

Miss Widdecombe: I am. Even a child could work out that, with a 40 per cent. fall in applications, one can afford


fewer staff, but when the number of applications is rising, one needs more. If the Government cannot even take that easy step in logic, it is no wonder that the system is in chaos. However, this is the very Home Secretary who, when he opposed our highly successful measures, said:
if a Labour Government do as badly administratively in dealing with asylum applications as the present Government have done, we shall have failed."—[Official Report, 15 July 1996; Vol. 281, c. 805.]
If doubling the backlog is not failing, perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us on what basis he works it out to be a success. Not even the sort of arithmetic that he deployed for the new police recruit numbers will be able to weasel him out of the morass of his failed asylum system.
The immigration and nationality directorate is failing to meet many of its key targets. For example, the published target for the present financial year is 59,000 asylum decisions, but the Government's latest estimate of achievement for the whole year is only 38,000. Three quarters of the way through the financial year, the IND is only half way towards its target for nationality decisions.

Mr. Marsha Singh: Does the right hon. Lady accept that the real motive for this debate is to enable the Conservative party to play the race card—[Interruption.] Let me finish. That will lead to insecurity for black and Asian people from ethnic minorities who are lawfully settled here and for many who are British citizens. Clearly, she is playing the race card.

Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman wants good race relations in this country, as we all do, a firm and fair immigration and asylum system is an absolute prerequisite. If he looks at what has been happening in Dover and elsewhere as a result of the chaos into which the Government have allowed the asylum system to descend, he will know that what we are doing today is in the interests of all sections of the community.
To return to my argument, the failure to reach targets has been described by the Public Accounts Committee in its latest report as "deplorable". The Committee—it is not a Conservative Committee—said that under this Home Secretary
the Home Office are not living up to their responsibilities.
That is an understatement.
There are grave concerns throughout the country about the Government's plan for dispersing asylum seekers. Local authorities are concerned.

Mr. Straw: The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is a Conservative. He said of the project which the right hon. Lady authorised in 1996, that it
it was over-ambitious from the outset. To combine a complex information technology project with a major reorganisation was always likely to be a risky venture.
Why did the right hon. Lady authorise that contract, fail to take account of the risks, and bind the next Government to it?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Miss Widdecombe: I will answer. Have you noticed, Madam Speaker, in overseeing the House, that as soon as

a Member comes to the Dispatch Box to answer, hon. Members yell "Answer", which is rather a pointless exercise. Perhaps now they will listen to the answer. [Interruption.] I shall not follow the Prime Minister's example and fail to answer, I will answer.
The decision to relocate was the Home Secretary's. He knew that a computer system was being installed and everyone knows that the installation of a new computer system is likely to be accompanied by many teething troubles, which he should not have augmented by deciding on relocation and reorganisation, as he did with the Passport Agency; then it was his computer system, and his decision to amend the law on child passports, that were involved.

Mr. Straw: It is no wonder that my hon. Friends shout "answer" when the right hon. Lady fails to answer the question. The point made by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was that the project was over-ambitious from the outset: that she made the errors.

Miss Widdecombe: The Government made it worse.

Mr. Straw: I shall come to that when I make my speech. But does the right hon. Lady now accept that signing the contract and imposing it was ill thought through and over-ambitious from the outset and that the principal responsibility for that rests with her?

Miss Widdecombe: Three years into a Labour Government they still try to say that all is the fault of the Conservative Government. I have just pointed out that the decisions that added complexities to what was already ambitious were the right hon. Gentleman's. He added those complexities and he cannot get out of that. When the day comes that the Home Secretary takes some responsibility instead of blaming everybody and everything else going for the fiascos in his Department, that will be the day he has the right to call upon others to answer anything at all.
I was saying that the local authorities are concerned about the potential impact on their budgets of the dispersal system and the increased strain on the services being provided to local communities. The Home Office's plans for dispersal are in chaos, which is unsurprising given that the Home Secretary got his own figures wrong at the press conference when he first put forward his ideas.
It is now reported that the local authorities will be asked by the Home Secretary to continue their voluntary scheme after 1 April, when the Home Office was supposed to take over. Is it the case, as has been reported, that there is a £90 million funding gap for the current financial year, which will have to be met by local authorities out of their budgets and, ultimately, by council tax payers?

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Does the right hon. Lady agree with Kent county council that funding for asylum seekers should be a national responsibility; if so, why did she introduce the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which placed responsibility for funding on authorities such as Kent?

Miss Widdecombe: Where I agree with Kent county council is when it says that, in the last six months of the Conservative Government, it was processing 50 asylum


seekers, while under this Government it is processing thousands every month. That is what has come out of Kent county council, and that is what matters.

Mr. Roger Gale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Kent county council, short-changed by the Government by £4.5 million, has now been told by Home Office Ministers to go with its begging bowl to the Department of Social Security because the Home Office will not fork out? Is she also aware that it has been made plain by the Government this week that local authorities are expected to find, out of the public sector, 40 per cent. of the houses necessary to house asylum seekers? How does she think that they will do that?

Miss Widdecombe: Not only that, but when the supposedly national system comes in, local authorities will remain responsible for people who have come through their systems and been dispersed elsewhere in the country. That is what Kent fears, and that is what other local authorities, which are particularly hard pressed by the chaos, also fear.
Is it the case that the Local Government Association has called the Government's funding plans "grossly inadequate"? Is it true that the terms and conditions for the 1999–2000 grant have not yet been published, despite the fact that it is only eight weeks from the end of the financial year? Is it true that just 4,000 places are currently on offer against an estimate of 20,000 needed? I hope that the Home Secretary will answer. To say that that is many less than required would be a gross understatement. I am told that two regions have failed to offer any places at all. Again, will he confirm whether that is true?
The Government need to explain why their plans are in chaos and what they now propose, for the problems will escalate if the backlogs and the number of asylum seekers arriving keep increasing and the accommodation available simply is not adequate. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), recently proposed £10,000 bonds for visitors from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, saying that her colleagues had been pressing for them. Such a measure may be popular on the Labour Benches, but we question the sense of imposing a bond in circumstances in which it is feared that the person—

Mrs. Roche: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: Let me finish. The Minister will not know what she is intervening on if she does not hear the end of the sentence. We question the sense of imposing a bond in circumstances in which it is feared that the person will disappear. Surely it is better not to let such a person in at all. Although a bond may deter the genuine who cannot afford it, those who are determined to get round our laws now have a choice: pay racketeers to bring them in or pay the Home Office to let them in.

Mrs. Roche: I thank the right hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving way. I sought to make an early intervention because she is eminently predictable; there are no surprises with her. She should not believe all she reads in The Sunday Telegraph. Her party did not speak

out or vote against the proposal in Committee, so why does she come new to the issue? Clearly she has no idea of what is going on.

Miss Widdecombe: It seems to me that the hon. Lady can tell us what is going on. Is there such a bond or not? If there is, will not it deter the genuine and make it terribly easy for those who are prepared to find the funds to get round our system?

Mrs. Roche: I am happy to help the right hon. Lady with her research. The proposal was debated in Committee.

Miss Widdecombe: Yes.

Mrs. Roche: The right hon. Lady says yes, but clearly does not know that. The proposal was debated extensively and the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) spoke on it. A consultation document was issued, inviting responses as to the level of the bond and where it should be applied. It was made clear that representations on visitors are often made from both sides of the House. She clearly thinks that the proposal is new and has completely failed to read the document. I am amazed that she has not done her research properly.

Miss Widdecombe: I want a simple answer. You will have noted, Madam Speaker, that Labour Members love answers and call out, "Answer!" Will she answer? Is there such a bond?

Mrs. Roche: Let me try, for the third time, to make the right hon. Lady understand. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] I am happy to answer. When we discussed the Bill in Committee—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Let us hear the answer.

Mrs. Roche: I shall speak slowly for the right hon. Lady. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 contains powers for a bond system. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said in Committee that we would issue a consultation document. That has been issued. Some Members of Parliament have received a copy and doubtless responded, but clearly she has not even seen one. We shall introduce a bond scheme and are consulting on it, but it would help if she read the documents.

Miss Widdecombe: After all that, I think that we gather that there is a bond—in which case, all my comments stand.

Mr. John Bercow: A moment ago, my right hon. Friend suggested that what might be called the bizarre bonds policy commanded widespread support on the Government Back Benches. Would she care to note for the record that it has incurred the justifiable wrath of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who might be described as the conscience of the London Labour party? Last Sunday, on BBC On-line, he said that the proposed policy was discriminatory and possibly illegal. That raises the question of whether he has "heavied" the Minister of State.

Miss Widdecombe: That the policy is discriminatory is certainly true in the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.


I suspect that if we had proposed a measure that applied only to certain countries, involving a bond of such magnitude, we would have been denounced as racist. We would have been told that we were playing the race card.
What we did was implement tough solutions that worked. We now propose further tough solutions, which will clear up the mess that the Government have made of the very good position that they inherited. There must be an end to amnesties that only encourage more people to present bogus asylum applications in the hope of benefiting from the next. We propose the automatic detention and fast-tracking of asylum applicants from safe countries, and those who arrive without papers. The genuine refugee will have nothing to fear; our plans are aimed at the bogus applicants and economic migrants who constitute the vast majority of those who apply.
Currently, 71,000 applications for asylum are being made each year. The latest refusal rates are nearly 80 per cent., which means that tens of thousands of applicants have no right to be in this country, because they are not found to be genuine refugees. However, the Home Office's own figures show that only about 3,000 are being removed, and a similar number are leaving of their own volition. The Home Office admits that many of the remainder simply abscond and disappear.
We therefore propose the establishment of a new removals agency with tough targets and a remit to trace, detain and remove those whose claims the judicial processes have duly rejected. The number of failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants who simply disappear is too high.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such an agency will need the support of local police forces if it is to detect and detain illegal immigrants? What does she think of Home Office policy that has led to plans for the removal of 250 police officers from the Staffordshire force over the next three years? Even at its present level, the force is unable to detain illegal immigrants.

Miss Widdecombe: That is why it may be necessary to extend powers of tracing beyond the police.
It is undeniable, as the Kent constabulary have found, that the whole business of policing the results of illegal immigration and excessive bogus asylum seeking has put enormous strain on the force at a time when there are fewer police nation wide, police budgets have been slashed, and the police are finding it extremely difficult just to stand still, let alone to perform extra tasks.

Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No.
We must face the fact that efficient removals are part of the deterrent to those who would play our system. People who want to play the system need to know that if they come here, they are likely to be detained, that their claims will be dealt with expeditiously, and that they will

then be duly removed. At present, the message is that if they come here and hang on long enough, they will probably benefit from an amnesty.

Mr. Prosser: rose—

Dr. Iddon: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I have made it clear that I want to make progress.

Dr. Iddon: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady made her position clear a second ago.

Miss Widdecombe: I must say that being asked to give way on the point on which I wish to make progress strikes me as rather odd.

Dr. Iddon: Will the right hon. Lady give way on the issue of the amnesty?

Miss Widdecombe: On the amnesty, yes.

Dr. Iddon: If the right hon. Lady is so worried about the figures, why did her party allow an amnesty in 1992–93? Moreover, why did her party write off 26,000 asylum applicants? On both counts, why did it fail to tell Parliament?

Miss Widdecombe: The straightforward answer is that we have learned from that mistake and this lot have not. Applications rose following an amnesty. Following tough solutions, they fell, so the first thing that the Government do is to propose an amnesty. It is completely illogical. Our straightforward position is that we have learned from past amnesties and there should be no future ones.
I call on the Government to say whether they agree that there should be no future amnesties. Are they leaping up to say whether there will be any? They are not. Presumably, they do not dare.
Those are just some of the measures that we propose. By contrast, the Government are all talk and no delivery. On asylum and immigration, as on many other issues, they have said one thing and done another. They have lost their grip on the situation and are flirting with desperate measures and gimmicks, rather than taking the necessary tough decisions that are required to sort the situation out.
The Home Secretary and his Ministers are guilty of grave misjudgment, staggering mismanagement and horrendous incompetence. [Laughter.] Laughter greets that. There was rather an embarrassed silence when the Home Secretary explained why he could not even get a relevant amendment on to the Order Paper today.
Therefore, the House and the country should not be surprised when things get worse—as they will—rather than better, under the Government. I commend not only the motion, but the measures that we took and will take. Not only the House, but the country has realised that, under the Government, there is to be nothing except what they are getting: rising asylum applications; failure to control the backlog, which the Government trumpeted as a flagship measure; failure to remove those who are found to have no


grounds on which to stay; failure to help local authorities that are picking up the bill for the Home Secretary's incompetence; and a general failure throughout the system.
One fact remains. In our last full year in government, asylum applications fell by nearly 40 per cent. They have risen by 130 per cent. under the present Government. If it had gone the other way, the Home Secretary would have taken the credit. Let him not try to pass the blame to his officials, his fax machine, or the immigration service. Let him take responsibility for the mess that he has inflicted on this country.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): After that speech, Madam Speaker, you might have done the House a favour if you had allowed the Government amendment, because the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) covered the same ground as she covered on 26 October, but less well. What I now regret is that the parliamentary department in the Home Office did not fax over that speech as well as our amendment—she could have just read it out.
I am always ready to hold a serious debate on the important issue of immigration and asylum, but a serious contribution to that debate was the last thing that we heard from the right hon. Lady. Instead, we heard a speech that was as confused in its analysis as it was empty of any serious propositions to deal fairly and firmly with those who apply for asylum in this country.
The right hon. Lady's bare-faced opportunism is best shown by the extraordinary lurches in policy over which she has presided, first in government and then in opposition. Today, we hear that she is on the side of toughness, yet she is the same shadow Home Secretary who, just three months ago, backed a Conservative amendment in the other place to restore social security cash payments to all asylum seekers, at a cost of £500 million a year—an amendment that she described as both common sense and sensible. She is the same shadow Home Secretary who, despite the thousands of clandestines entering the UK, smuggled through our ports in the backs of lorries, has sided with negligent or complicit hauliers by opposing the civil penalty against those truck drivers and owners who fail to take any reasonable precautions to stop people gaining access to their trucks.
The right hon. Lady now talks about those who are facilitating bogus asylum seekers. However, she is the same shadow Home Secretary who, when Minister with responsibility for immigration and confronted with mounting evidence of the connection between the serious criminals who traffic in unfounded asylum seekers and the unscrupulous immigration advisers and solicitors who help them manufacture their claims in the United Kingdom, did absolutely nothing. Worse, when the Government were in opposition and we tabled amendments to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 to control those unscrupulous immigration advisers, what was her response? It was not to say, "Yes, we have a problem and should introduce controls", but to wash her hands of the problem and to reject those controls.

Miss Widdecombe: Currently, some lorry drivers are discovering that, against their best endeavours, they have

people in their loads who should not be there. Until the right hon. Gentleman introduced the new measures, those lorry drivers were able to feel quite secure in reporting that fact to the authorities. Is he aware that I have been receiving letters from lorry drivers who have done that in the past, but who say that, in future, they would be very wary of reporting it to the authorities in case they were faced with a fine for their pains?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been plenty of instances of illegal entrants being detected, claiming asylum—naturally—and then being issued with a voucher and told to go to Croydon, but never getting to Croydon? He has said that there have been no solid proposals from us. Does he not accept that a proposal for automatic detention in such cases would solve an awful lot?

Mr. Straw: I shall deal with the right hon. Lady's point on detention in a moment. However, her first point was absolutely extraordinary. The proposition she is advancing is that if a haulier has 20, 30 or 40 clandestines—not one or two, typically—secreted in the back of his lorry, he should be under no duty before his lorry is put on the ferry to check whether those clandestines are there. That is her proposition.
The Government are proposing a sensible and fair system under which, if hauliers take the reasonable precautions specified in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, they will not incur a penalty; but if they do not, they will. I think that that system is accepted by the whole of the British people except—extraordinarily—the right hon. Lady.
The burden of the right hon. Lady's speech is that the unexpected increase in asylum seekers that occurred in 1999 is the consequence solely of the Government's approach to the issue. However, on that puerile analysis, Douglas Hurd and Kenneth Baker were entirely to blame not for a doubling of asylum seekers, as happened last year, but for the tenfold increase in asylum seekers that occurred at the beginning of the 1990s. Moreover, on her analysis, the fact that the Berlin wall had come down and communism had collapsed in the intervening period was only a minor irrelevance.
We do face—as do all other prosperous nations—a significant problem of unfounded asylum seekers who are in truth simply economic migrants. However, if we look down the list of the top countries, what do we find? We find the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan—which together last year accounted for almost 31,000 asylum applicants; more than 40 per cent. of the total. Even the right hon. Lady would find it difficult to deny that each of those countries has faced severe upheaval of one sort or another, and that many of the applications from those countries are genuine and well-founded.

Mr. Michael Howard: If that is the Home Secretary's defence, how does he explain the fact that last year the number of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom increased by 98 per cent., whereas the number of asylum seekers in Germany decreased by 3 per cent?

Mr. Straw: I am happy to explain that point. Some, but not all, European countries faced similar and, in some cases, larger increases than the United Kingdom.


Germany still has a higher number of applicants in absolute terms than we do, but the figure is diminishing. The reason for that is that some years ago Germany put in place the systems of control that we are introducing and made the necessary investment that we need to make in order to make good the failure over which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald presided.

Mr. Gale: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that in October 1997 my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and I visited the Home Office on the advice of the police, who had told us that there would be an influx of 3,000 illegal immigrants from the Czech and Slovak Republics? Does he deny that we asked then for visa restrictions to be imposed? Does he deny that his junior Minister said that there was not a problem and nor was there likely to be? Does he deny that it took him a year to introduce a visa requirement for the Slovak Republic? Does he deny that he has still done nothing about the Czech Republic? Does not all that show that the Government are seen by others as a soft touch?

Mr. Straw: No, the Government have not been seen as a soft touch. We have to consider the problem of playing the race card. We need a swifter system to deal with well-founded applications, but we have to be careful in our use of language. I gave the figures for the four countries that I mentioned because under the 1951 convention, which the Conservatives have observed just as we have, we are obliged to consider every application on its merits, regardless of whether the applicant comes from a country that is currently on the white list or one from which only a tiny proportion of applicants—or even none—have been accepted for asylum.

Miss Widdecombe: Of course.

Mr. Straw: Yes, but the natural consequence of the emotive language that is used is that we should somehow abrogate our responsibilities under that treaty. The Conservatives have to accept that 40 per cent. of the large increase that we have faced comes from countries that, on any analysis, have suffered the most serious political upheaval and violence that any of us could imagine.
During the past two years only 2 per cent. of applicants from China have been granted leave to stay, but only three months ago the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and many Conservative Members condemned China during its President's state visit for its record on human rights, indirectly giving encouragement to all claimants from that country.
The right hon. Lady claims that numbers would be under control if we had followed the policy and approach of the Government of whom she was a member. She rests a large part of her case on the fact that numbers had started to go down as her Administration left office. If the 1996 Act was so good, why has it produced such poor results? The stark truth is that all the increase in asylum seekers about which she protests occurred under a legal and administrative framework that the Conservatives laid down.
The dip in numbers in late 1996 and 1997 came about after the previous Administration removed any entitlement to welfare support or benefit for those who applied in-country. However, one of the Conservatives many failures was not thinking through what they were doing. They were bound to be faced with a judicial review of that decision, which resulted in the policy being overturned by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. That badly thought-through policy resulted in a huge burden being placed on local authorities—not spread evenly throughout the country, but principally in Kent and London—to provide support for those who applied in-country. The restoration of that support is one reason why numbers started to rise.

Mr. James Clappison: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: In a moment.
I remind the right hon. Lady—who, even by her standards, seems extraordinarily poorly briefed—that for the time being the 1996 Act remains binding on the Government. We are replacing most of its provisions by more streamlined and effective measures in the new legislation, but until they are implemented, the 1996 Act remain in force—including the so-called white list which she claimed we had already abolished.
The right hon. Lady also claims that the Government have somehow encouraged the increase. That is a complete travesty of the facts. There has been and there will be no amnesty. The arrangements in the White Paper for dealing with the backlog of cases which had been waiting for an initial decision—not during our period in government, but since 1993—reflect the reality of those cases. New applicants have been in no doubt that their applications will be considered in the usual way.
The difference between Labour and Conservative is that we announced the policy for dealing with that backlog, but until this afternoon, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), never before has the right hon. Lady or any Conservative Member admitted that they had any policy to deal with the backlog from 1992–93, that it was an amnesty, and that it was a mistake. They were so ashamed of that amnesty that they failed to report it to Parliament. I wrote to the right hon. Lady three times last year asking her to accept responsibility for what happened and three times she failed properly to answer. The simple fact is that in 1992–93, under her amnesty, 26,000 people were granted exceptional leave to remain, compared with fewer than 6,000 in the years around that period.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he is dealing in simple facts, the simple fact is that he inherited from us a backlog approaching 50,000, which he described at the time as scandalous. The backlog now stands at 102,000. The whole of that increase has occurred under his administration. Will he take responsibility for that increase?

Mr. Straw: Of course I take responsibility for what has happened under my administration. I have never denied that. It is part of my role. In my very first speech as Home Secretary I said that I would take responsibility for what happened under my administration and my holding of


this office. I invite the right hon. Lady to accept that we are not in the era of Pol Pot and 1 May 1997 was not year zero. What happened before may just have some bearing on the circumstances and systems that we inherited.
The right hon. Lady complained today, as she has in previous years, about the pressure on asylum seekers in her county of Kent. In her conference speech last year, she even had the audacity to say:
I went to Dover myself, saw the effects of the government's disgraceful concentration of asylum seekers on the town.
Yet she was the Minister responsible for the shambolic arrangements which have piled the pressure on Dover and other towns in Kent—keeping social security cash benefits and housing benefit for port applicants, with all the incentive for sucking in unfounded applications which they provide—and then forcing Kent and London local councils to bear the brunt of supporting almost every other applicant who applies in-country and then, on top of that, proposing an extra £500 million in social security cash handouts. What sort of message did that £500 million in unnecessary cash handouts send to asylum seekers?

Mr. Prosser: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the damage that the right hon. Lady did in Dover when she pirouetted through Pencester gardens? At a time when Labour Members were trying to quell social tensions and solve community problems, she came along surrounded by television cameras, looking for a quick soundbite and a headline. Is she aware of the terrible damage that she did on that day?

Mr. Straw: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work that he has undertaken in Dover and in the surrounding area. Secondly, I point out to the right hon. Lady that the Liberal Democrat amendment—which is better than a curate's egg, although I am sorry that I cannot accept all of it—includes an important reference to the statement signed by all party leaders on the need for those of us who hold office to conduct our debates and arguments in a way that does not damage race relations.
When I listen to the language used by the right hon. Lady and examine some of the things that she has done and her complete evasion of responsibility for what has happened in Kent and in Dover, I wonder whether she does not come perilously close to what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) invited his party to do—to use immigration as an election issue.
Some of us remember all too well the hon. Gentleman's chilling words when he was the head of the Conservative research department. He stated that immigration was "an issue which we"—the Conservative party—
raised successfully in 1992 and in the 1994 European election campaign. It played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt.
The hon. Gentleman was talking about hurting the Labour party, but that language—that sort of invitation—does not hurt our party nearly as much as it hurts people from black and Asian communities. It hurts genuine asylum seekers, as well as those who are not.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that those who suffer most from the failing asylum system are the genuine asylum seekers, who, as I said in my speech, need a rapid and safe haven? They are at the centre of our wish to have a streamlined and

effective asylum system. Is it really his view that, when asylum applications and the backlog have doubled, it is improper for the Opposition to criticise the Government for that, to point out why it happened and to make our own proposals for rectifying it? Is he saying that to do that is to come perilously close to racist language? Let him grow up.

Mr. Straw: For five years, we have been asking for the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire to withdraw those remarks, or for them to be disowned by Opposition Front-Bench Members. I am looking forward to that.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. If he cares to look back, he will find that my remarks were made entirely in the context of the Labour party's policy in both the 1992 and the 1994 elections. He will remember that policy well; it was to extend a right of residence in the United Kingdom to everybody who enjoys the right of residence in other EU countries. He knows that that was a damaging policy—as we argued in both elections. He acknowledged that and dropped the policy.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me or my constituency—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I think that one bite of the cherry is sufficient.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire protests too much. I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison).

Mr. Clappison: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. May I take him back to the collapse in the administrative machinery at the Home Office that is at the root of the problem? Last March, he told the Special Standing Committee on the Immigration and Asylum Bill that he was taking personal responsibility for that machinery and that it was the most important task that he faced. Since then, the backlog has grown by a further 30,000; it is now more than 100,000 and growing every month. When will he bring that matter under control? When will the backlog start to go down?

Mr. Straw: Later in my speech, I will give the hon. Gentleman the figures that spell out how, after a period of considerable difficulty, the processing of asylum applications, as well as the casework on other immigration applications, is improving.

Mr. David Winnick: Like my right hon. Friend, I have no time for bogus asylum seekers. Is it not true that time and again the Tory party has played the race card—including an onslaught on the ancestors of several Members sitting on the Tory Benches?

Mr. Straw: I bow to the greater historical knowledge of my hon. Friend.
What, above all, gives lie to the posture of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is the Opposition's record during the passage of our Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. She calls today for a huge extension of detention, yet at no stage did those on


the Conservative Front Bench or any Member of the Opposition table such an amendment during the passage of the Act. She calls now for a continuation of the white list, yet those on the Conservative Front Bench were evidently so satisfied with our alternative to the white list that they did not even seek to debate the proposals in the Act, still less to vote to against them.
Twice in the space of three years the Conservative Government tried to reform the asylum system. If their first Act—the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993—had worked, the second would not have been necessary. Dramatically short turn-around times in processing applications were promised when the Act was considered in 1992. The then Home Secretary promised that many applications would be turned around in 10 days.
The 1993 Act failed, so the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) had to introduce the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. He admitted what has now happened. He said:
Unless we take firm action now … Home Office projections show that the number claiming asylum will rise to at least 8,000 a month—almost 100,000 a year—by the end of the decade.
It was fundamentally because of the failure of the 1996 Act that we decided that the system needed root-and-branch reform. Following a comprehensive review of the system, our White Paper set out the provisions for that reform.
The 1999 Act, unlike the provisions of the previous Administration, will deliver a single, comprehensive right of appeal. It will create a new asylum support system to replace the current shambles and it will regulate immigration advisers to eradicate the unscrupulous who exploit and cheat vulnerable applicants. It will strengthen the power of the immigration service to target the criminal facilitators who profit from the traffic in clandestine and illegal immigration.
At the time of our 1998 White Paper, asylum applications were projected to increase to 44,000 in the current financial year, but we now expect to receive more than 80,000. As I spelled out in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, numbers in many other countries have increased to a similar degree. The Republic of Ireland, proportionate to its population, has seen a huge increase, and so has Finland. Under figures just released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, per head of population Britain is not at the top of the league tables; it is ninth. That fact needs to be taken into account if we are to have a balanced and sensible debate about the well-founded and unfounded problems of asylum seekers.

Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman's predictions seem as likely to be fulfilled as was Billy Bunter's postal order to arrive. Given that thousands of asylum seekers habitually disappear when their applications are turned down, can he explain why the Home Office target for the removal of such people in 1999–2000 is only 8,000, even though the applications of many times that number are rejected each year? Is not his policy—pusillanimous as it is—a recipe for a constant, on-going increase in the number of people staying here who should not be staying here?

Mr. Straw: I am not entirely clear to which figures the hon. Gentleman refers. Total removals in the last financial

year were 35,200, which happens to be up on the total number of removals in the last year of the previous Government, which was 28,000. Let me make it clear that I accept that we need to do much more to expand enforcement and removal activity. That is one thing that we propose to do. However, we start from a very low base because the previous Administration effectively collapsed the staffing of the immigration and nationality directorate by taking the astonishing risk that all the savings that were promised, but never delivered, under the old contract would be available.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was at her most extravagant when it came to criticism of the increase in the backlog of asylum applications. Part of the reason for that increase is the higher than expected volume of applications to which I have already referred. However, it is also significantly the result—if I accept responsibility for what happens under this Administration, the right hon. Lady and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe have to accept responsibility for what happened under theirs—of the contract that she signed with Siemens for the delivery of so-called business change in the immigration and nationality directorate. That contract is binding on the Government. At its signature, Home Office Ministers described it as
a unique opportunity for the transformation of the IND.
It certainly had a transforming effect. As I have already said, the Public Accounts Committee recently described it as
over-ambitious from the outset".
The previous Administration even made provisions for a redundancy programme to get rid of people before they had any savings in their pockets. We reversed the redundancy programme, but unfortunately by then the IND had lost valuable caseworking expertise.
I can tell the hon. Member for Hertsmere that since last summer, we have begun a massive recruitment programme to boost staff numbers. We are taking on 850 extra staff. They include 250 asylum decision-makers, who have already been recruited, and more are planned. We are close to achieving 4,000 asylum decisions a month, and we are aiming to make 8,000 a month by the late spring. All that takes time, but even at current intake levels those additional resources should enable us to make major inroads into the backlog.
I pay particular tribute to the staff of the IND. They have made a massive effort to recover its business from the depths of last year. That commitment and the additional resources that we are providing will help to consolidate the recovery.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I echo the Home Secretary's tribute to the staff who deal with that huge amount of work. However, the present system gives rise to serious concern about the work that is being done. Does he accept that some of those who sit on tribunals as adjudicators are not working at all at the moment because they are not being given any cases? That is because some of the files that have been transferred from Lunar house to the Whitgift centre as part of the great reorganisation are sitting in a basement, untouched because they are said to be surrounded by


asbestos; they are not being processed at all. Is not it still the case that the system is not working, even though many people want to do the work?

Mr. Straw: I accept that the system is certainly not working as well or as fully as it should, and it will be some time before it is working fully. However, it is getting better. There has been a significant improvement in the departments and arrangements for which I am responsible and those for which my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is responsible.

Mr. Humfrey Matins: rose—

Mr. Clappison: rose—

Mr. Straw: I have given way a great deal. I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall make progress.
We have set a target that from April 2001 most initial asylum decisions will be made within two months, and most appeals decided within a further four months. We remain committed to those targets. Indeed, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friends that we are already meeting those targets for families with children. Following a debate on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, we have given priority to such applications, and since November most of them have been decided within two months.
The interim asylum support scheme is already in place and there has been much more dispersal as a result, easing pressures on London and the south-east. The full scheme will come into force from April 2000. Support, mainly in kind, will then be provided with minimal cash. Dispersal will be on a no-choice basis as regards location.
Returning to removals, at the end of last year I announced our plans to open a new reception centre for asylum seekers at Oakington, near Cambridge, providing up to 400 additional places. Applicants who are transferred to Oakington will be required to reside there for about seven days while their claim is decided, and their application will fall to be refused on non-compliance grounds if they leave without permission.
Subject to relevant permissions being granted, new detention facilities are also already planned for Aldington in Kent, Heathrow airport and Lindholme, near Doncaster. Those alone will create an additional 400 places and will reduce the immigration service's dependence on places in Prison Service establishments. A further expansion in the immigration service's detention estate, to cope with the increasing number of removals that we are expecting to achieve, is under active consideration, along with the establishment of reporting centres, which will ensure that contact is maintained with applicants throughout the process.

Mr. Malins: I am very concerned about the question of removals. I ask the Home Secretary carefully to check his figures for 1998–99 and for how many are expected in future. Official figures that I have obtained show that in 1998, only 350 failed asylum seekers left as a result of deportation. That figure was in a written answer, which I can show him now.

Mr. Straw: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the figure cannot be as low as 350. As soon

as I have finished my speech, I will get the information to which he is referring and ensure that the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Homsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), deals the matter when she replies to the debate. I can tell him that, in the current financial year, 35,200 people have been removed from this country.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I have dealt with the matter.

Mr. Lilley: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the matter; I have the figures here.

Mr. Straw: I have dealt with the matter. I am always concerned to ensure that there is agreement on figures, but that cannot be reached across the Floor of the House. There is a huge difference between 350 and 35,200, which needs to be sorted out—the figure is certainly not 350—in more detailed discussion. Perhaps I should invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to establish a numeracy hour for Conservative Members.
I come to the issue of charges for clandestines. In 1987, the previous Government introduced civil penalties, at £2,000 a passenger, on airlines that carried passengers who had inadequate documentation and no permission to enter the UK. That system has worked, but there is a gaping loophole in its scope because it does not extend to buses, coaches or trucks. Partly as a result of that, there has been a huge increase in the number of clandestine asylum seekers coming through sea ports, particularly Dover—something else that has added to the pressure on that port.
Under our new Act, we are extending the civil penalty to bus and coach carriers, and creating a new civil penalty for all clandestines found in the back of freight trucks. The system will work fairly for those who take the necessary precautions. I fail to understand how, on one hand, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald can use the emotive language of calling us a soft touch, while on the other opposing such a common-sense policy, which builds on the controls that the Conservatives initiated.

Mr. Clappison: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
Not least because of a large immigration case load as a constituency member, I am well aware that the service that the IND has been providing to hon. Members has fallen short of the standard that they have a right to expect. We are determined to correct that. In order to provide a much better system through which hon. Members and their staff are able to contact the IND, a new dedicated telephone service has been established. Staff will be available between 9 o'clock in the morning and 6 o'clock in the evening to answer the inquiries of hon. Members and their staff and to check the progress of any case. Where a case is found to be straightforward and can be easily resolved, that will be done, and quickly.
To return to the question raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I am pleased to say that the position in the integrated casework directorate, which deals with non-asylum matters, is improving. More than 60 per cent. of applications are resolved within a few days of arrival, all public callers in Croydon are seen on the same day, and about 800 Home Office travel documents are delivered each week, compared with 100 a week in August.
We recognise the scale of the task to restore the integrity of the asylum and immigration system. There can be no quick fix, and we have never promised one. We are putting in place the foundations to ensure that the system is fairer, faster and firmer. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 should, over time, deliver real changes. We are devoting the resources needed to deliver substantially higher output. Against the degradation of the system under the previous Government, we are investing an additional £120 million in the immigration and nationality directorate over this and the next two years.
If the changes introduced by the Conservatives—their two flawed Acts, their computerisation that went wrong and their staff cuts—had worked, the major reforms on which we are embarked would not have been necessary. However, they are necessary, and it is a mark of the continued policy failure of the Conservatives that their contribution to our legislation was not to strengthen it, but to weaken it by opposing penalties on hauliers with clandestine entrants hidden on their lorries and by calling for a £500 million extension of cash payments to asylum seekers.
We are getting on with restoring the asylum and immigration system to proper integrity, so as to ensure that it deals firmly, fairly and swiftly with asylum and immigration applications. We are repairing the damage that the previous Government did to that system with their cuts in staff, their computerisation and their failure to provide proper financing. Having listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, I can tell her that the British people will need far more than the nonsense that she served up this afternoon if the Conservatives are ever again to be elected to govern.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
believes that both the last Government and the present Government have failed to respond properly to the asylum, immigration and nationality demands made of this country; is aware of widespread discontent with the delays in processing immigration applications and that the number of unprocessed asylum applications has doubled over the previous two years to a total of over 100,000; takes very seriously the Seventh Report of the Committee of Public Accounts (HC 130), which criticises the Government's mismanagement of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the fears of local authorities about the practical difficulties associated with the asylum-seekers dispersal scheme; calls upon the Government, which has now been in office for over a thousand days, to take more effective and urgent action to reduce the backlog of unprocessed applications and to improve the effectiveness of decision-making; believes that the necessary staff should be employed immediately so that good-quality decisions can be made quickly, and that the interests of applicants and taxpayers alike can be met in a system which treats every applicant fairly; and supports the Commission

for Racial Equality agreement, signed by all three major party leaders, not to use problems in the immigration and asylum systems in ways which could damage community and race relations.".
It comes as an unexpected pleasure and surprise that, for the first time in my years as a Member of Parliament, on a Conservative Supply day, a Liberal or Liberal Democrat amendment has been selected for debate. At the end of the debate, the choice will be between one Conservative policy and one Liberal Democrat policy, which might explain why the Government amendment was not selected—if it had been, the choice would have been between two conservative policies.
The Home Secretary was kind enough to alert my office to the fact that there had been a technical hitch with the Government amendment. As I told him just before the debate stated, we had already noticed that something had clearly gone wrong because we had seen the Government's amendment on a previous occasion and voted against it then. I know that the Government suffer from amnesia, but to put the same amendment before the House twice in three months strikes me as somewhat excessive. However, it is not inappropriate that, in a debate on the poor administration of the Home Office, the Home Office has not even managed to get the right amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Straw: I thought that he would say that.

Mr. Hughes: I thought that the Home Secretary would think that I would say that. As I told him previously, I hope for his sake that things can only get better.
I have been looking back at debates on what became the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. In large measure, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), with the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), dealt with that legislation for the Liberal Democrats. On Second Reading in the House of Lords, the current Attorney-General, then a Home Office Minister, said:
Immigration and asylum are among the most sensitive and difficult issues. Decisions in individual cases can mean the difference between life and death … We want to uphold this country's long-standing tradition of giving shelter to those who flee persecution."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 1999; Vol. 603, c. 177.]
I start on a non-partisan and non-party political note by saying that our job when we debate such issues is to rise above jingoistic politics, which are often too easily resorted to. We must try to deal with a matter that is hugely important, not only to all our constituencies, but nationally and internationally. Over the generations, many of the great contributors to British life have been the children of immigrants. Many of those who have given most have been the descendants of refugees. Many Members of Parliament have sprung from families who fled persecution in other parts of the world.
I entirely concur with the Government in saying that it is not normally the attitude, behaviour or competence of the UK Government that is the largest single determinant of the number of people applying to settle in this country, either as immigrants or as asylum seekers. They come here principally because of the politics and pressures prevalent in other places in the world. We are not immune from those pressures, nor should we be. We have to behave responsibly and play our proper part in the world.
It is quite wrong of the Conservative Opposition to suggest that the number of asylum seekers shows whether the Government are a soft touch. I heard the Leader of the Conservative Opposition make his allegations today. The number of applications from people coming to Britain has gone up, as it has in almost every other country in Europe, for self-evident reasons. Only someone who has not read a newspaper or watched a television news bulletin in the past 10 years would imagine otherwise.

Mr. Howard: Did not the hon. Gentleman listen to the Home Secretary? Did not he hear the Home Secretary say, in answer to my question about the fall in the number of asylum applications in Germany, that the reason for that fall is the fact that there are effective arrangements in Germany for dealing with asylum applications? In other words—the Home Secretary did not use these words, but it comes to the same thing—he said that the number of applications had fallen in Germany because Germany was no longer a soft touch.

Mr. Hughes: Those were not the words that the Home Secretary used. I listened to the exchange. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who is a former Home Secretary, knows that immigration into Germany during the 1990s was often from countries immediately to the east of it and from Turkey in large measure. The pattern of immigration to Germany in the past few years was different from the pattern of immigration to Britain.
Of course, the measures taken by a country have an effect. The Home Secretary was right in what he said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
The pattern across Europe is revealed by the figures for the 13 European countries, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman can obtain from the Library, just as I did. The UK rate for asylum applications last year per head of population was 9.8 per 100,000, compared to an average of 9.5 per 100,000. Germany had a slightly higher number last year than we had. Yes, its rate is now going down, and yes, ours is going up, but it would not be wise or reasonable to suggest that that is entirely or largely due to the measures adopted by the country in question. They are a factor—

Mr. Howard: That is what the Home Secretary said.

Mr. Hughes: I do not believe that, and the record will show that that was not the case. I was present for the exchange between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Home Secretary.
The Home Secretary has on previous occasions accused me and other colleagues of being woolly liberals. Many of us who deal with immigration and asylum matters are far from woolly liberals about those issues. We have constituencies with huge numbers of asylum seekers and immigrants. I checked the figure this morning. There are just under 3,000 refugees being looked after by my local authority, and large numbers in my constituency. My office receives a significant number of new immigration cases every day, as do those of some of my hon. Friends around the country.
We come to the issue first from our constituency experience. That is why we are critical of the present system. People can wait for up to six years for their cases

to be dealt with. People hand in their passport for a new permission to stay to be approved, and they do not see their passport for weeks, months or sometimes years. Documents handed in are lost and not found. Documents are not returned. One Department does not know that another Department has transferred the case to it to be dealt with. The case does not get to the tribunal for weeks to be dealt with so that the appeal can be heard, because the papers get lost in the system.
Those are administrative problems, but behind them are real people with real concerns. There are people in refugee camps waiting to join their families. There are people who want to come on a visit, like the person who wanted to come from Sierra Leone to see his dying mother but never made it because the system would not process the application in time, and the mother died while he was still waiting for his case to be dealt with in Sierra Leone.
From all over the world, the experience is that the system is not working. That is not in the interest of the asylum seeker or the rest of the community, because it builds up the number of people who are literally waiting in a queue, some of them on our doorstep, and it builds up the cost.
Let us be clear that none of us in this country is being overrun by immigrants or asylum seekers. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) and his constituents, and those in London boroughs have borne the brunt of large numbers, but compared with many countries and the numbers with which they deal regularly, asylum seekers constitute a small additional burden on this country. A rich, western country should be able to deal with that competently and fairly.
It is true that there have been significant increases in numbers in recent years. The Home Secretary was right to say that we must be careful to get the facts right. Approximately one third of asylum seekers are accepted for settlement on the first request. After appeal, approximately half are accepted. It is not an abuse of a system for people to try, even if they are rejected. That is why the system exists. It is comparable to a court. It is not an abuse of the jury system for someone to want to go to Crown court, and it is not an abuse of the immigration system for someone to try to come to Britain. In both instances, some cases are turned down.
Of course, some people enter the country illegally, and they should not; others remain illegally, and they should not. However, we should not punish those who often come from traumatic backgrounds simply because others try to sneak through when they should not. Doing that is comparable to punishing 25 good pupils in a classroom for the behaviour of five naughty pupils. That is not the right way to run a system; indeed, it would be illegal.

Dr. Evan Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's use of the words "abusive" and "bogus" is unhelpful? Those expressions whip up the media. An unsuccessful applicant for a job is not necessarily a bogus applicant. If applicants are refused entry, it simply means that they have not fulfilled the IND's strict criteria. The terms "bogus" and "abusive" also attach blame to people who are fleeing or trying to better themselves.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is right. In his short time in the House, he has gained huge experience of immigration matters, not least because Campsfield is in his constituency.
Let us consider the international background. We should not duck the facts: this continent is experiencing the worst refugee crisis since the second world war. There are 1 million displaced people in Europe. European applications have increased by 20 per cent. in the past year. Our figures tell a story: the largest number of applicants come from former Yugoslavia. That is not an accident, but the consequence of civil war. People come here after losing their families, homes and everything they ever possessed. There are hundreds and thousands of people in refugee camps in southern Europe. I have visited central Africa, where there were refugee camps of tens of thousands of people. We must consider our position against that perspective.
As the Home Secretary said, we signed the United Nations convention in 1951. There has since been an updating protocol. The key element of the convention is that this country must treat every case on its merits. That is the test. We must look at every case, without lists for fast treatment and lists for slow treatment, or cursory treatment for some and not for others. All asylum seekers, no matter where they come from, must be considered on their merits.
The Liberal Democrats believe in a firm and fair immigration policy, which must be non-racist and non-discriminatory. There should also be a policy on asylum, and it should honour our legal and moral obligations, not deter or penalise genuine asylum seekers. Ultimately, we must be able to say that when somebody needed us, we were there; that when people justifiably needed to come to Britain, we let them in. We join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to those in the IND who have laboured under huge pressure and who are almost always as helpful as possible.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) had to leave the Chamber; she apologised to me before she left. The criticisms are therefore made in her absence, but they apply to the motion.
Three documents show clearly that the current problems preceded this Government. I pray in aid those documents, all of which are available to hon. Members and date from last year. The first is the evidence given to the Special Standing Committee on the Immigration and Asylum Bill in the spring of 1999 by the Public and Commercial Services Union, which described the problem with which it was trying to deal. It said that it believed
that the Committee's consideration of these provisions"—
that is, those in the Bill—
needs to be fully informed as to why the time limits set appear to be wholly unrealistic. The grounds for this belief include:

—the rise in the asylum backlog during 1998
—the reduction in IND staff during the same period, in preparation for the 'computerisation' of casework …
—the delay in the delivery of the I.T. system
—the transitional problems currently being experienced in IND and their repercussions in the medium term
—doubts about the anticipated longer-term efficiency gain…
—the insufficiency of the additional funds made available to IND following the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review."


The PCS concluded that it
firmly believes that unless the implementation of these provisions are accompanied by the investment of significant additional resources in the form of extra staff, further delays and backlogs are inevitable, jeopardising not only the viability of this particular strategy but the main aims of the Bill, in general."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 22 March 1999; c. 448–49.]
That was the union's evidence and it was clear.
As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is clearly aware, the Public Accounts Committee more recently produced two other relevant documents in the autumn. One looked into the Home Office IND casework programme and the other was on improving the delivery of Government information technology projects. They are both damning indictments of the system as set up, the failure to provide the resources and to plan for an increase in the number of people who would arrive, and the absolutely mad—those are my words—decision to move the whole operation while changing the operating system and at the peak of demand.
If ever anything was bound to have caused complete confusion and add to the backlog—and it did—it was that administrative change last year. The incompetence and failure to plan adequately began under the Tories and they failed. The number of people who were not picked up and should have been and who were told to leave but were not deported was no better under the Conservative Government than it is now, and the system was no more competent, as I know from personal experience. Therefore, it is a bit rich to say that the problem is the fault of this Government since 1997.
However, the PAC did not let the Government off the hook. The PAC and its report made it abundantly clear that the Government did not respond quickly or adequately enough and that they could have done. The PAC was very critical indeed. The truth of the matter is that every increase in the number of cases that are not dealt with increases the trauma of the person in the queue, who may be a valid immigrant seeking asylum, as well as having two other harmful effects. It increases community tension—the longer the queue and the larger the pool of people, the more tensions and pressures are put on the system. As great a folly, however, is that it costs everyone more.
The PAC made the case explicitly. The cost of processing an application is of the order of £400. The cost per month of keeping a family here in the queue is of the order of £1,000 more than that. Therefore, it is in no one's interests to have a huge number of people waiting and we do not have the resources to deal with them. It was a terrible mistake not to have anticipated these problems, as the Government failed to do, and not to have provided resources and investment.
Sometimes when we argue about resources, for example for the health service, the Government reasonably say, "Well it takes three years to train a nurse and seven to train a doctor, so we can't suddenly sort out all the problems." The Home Secretary knows that it takes between three and six months to train people to deal competently with IND cases in the Home Office and that after that time those people will be as competent as those who were dealing with them before. The system can be turned around quickly. It is not an impossible task and it must be tackled.
I have some questions and propositions for the Government. There are still huge pressures on the system. First, we need to know whether the cost of the system that


the Government have introduced—the asylum support directorate national system, which will come into force in April—is still per person or per unit administratively much more expensive than the system that is being replaced. If that is the case, it will have immediate knock-on implications for additional resources.
Secondly, the Home Secretary said a moment ago that he still hoped that most of the cases could be dealt with in the target of two months by April next year—four months for appeal cases. Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific? Are the Government on course to deliver that target? From now on, will the backlog reduce and the target time come nearer?
Thirdly, we always criticise the Government for choosing the waiting list test for hospital beds and treatment. The number of people on the list matters little. What matters is how long one waits. The issue is not how big is the backlog, but how long one must wait for one's case to be heard. What is the present average length of wait for a case to be dealt with? If that is not decreasing, we are not winning the battle. If the time that one has to wait for one's case to be processed and for an appeal to be dealt with is not decreasing, we are not moving forward.
Finally, there is great concern about the provisions for local authorities and their ability to provide under the interim system dispersal places for asylum seekers. The authorities are keen to help, but they do not appear to have come up with places. There is even greater concern that after April there will not be places to enable the new system to work. When the Minister of State replies I should be grateful if she told us how far short we are of the number of guaranteed places that are necessary if dispersal is to happen. It is no good to plan the dispersal of refugees from Kent, south London or Islington if there are no places to receive them. That is not an acceptable policy and it must be changed.
Our position as expressed in our amendment is straightforward. We believe that one must start by trying to reduce globally the number of people who become refugees. Good foreign policy, diplomacy and conflict resolution will play their part in reducing the sorts of crises that we have recently seen on our continent. Those require us to work internationally and not put our head in the sand and be little nationalists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said, it is no good Conservatives using language that suggests that everything will be fine so long as we look after our own and that anyone else can come second.
We have to be ruthless about reducing the waiting times. That is in everyone's interests, not least those of the taxpayer, and that has to be a priority.
Also, we are nearing the Budget. The Prime Minister always accuses my hon. Friends and me of wanting more money. The truth of the matter is that investment now in good-quality staff to process the cases in the system will save money in the medium and longer term. There has been movement in that direction, but if we are to make progress, the Chancellor must put his hand into the contingency reserve in the Budget, and the comprehensive spending review needs to produce more money for the IND. We find money quickly when there is a war in Kuwait or southern Europe, for example. We have no problem with paying for the troops to go there. When a war somewhere else has a knock-on effect for us, however, we find it more difficult to respond.
Finally, as the Home Secretary was kind enough to say, the former leader of our party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), signed with other party leaders, at the request of the Commission for Racial Equality, a document which stated that when debating immigration and asylum matters we must be particularly careful to ensure that we say and do nothing to harm race and community relations in this country. The test of the right policy and the right approach will be passed by the politicians who rise above the temptation to foster party advantage and racial disharmony and argue for immigration and asylum policies that allow Britain to honour its obligations and those who come to us for help to be dealt with quickly and fairly in their interests and in ours.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, I appeal to all right hon. and hon. Members to keep their remarks within a reasonable limit. There is little time left for the debate and many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye.

Mr. George Mudie: First, I pay tribute to the speech made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Sometimes, he infuriates both friends and enemies, but when he pitches his speech in the manner that he has just done, it is hard not to pay tribute to its content.
However, I shall not go down the road of that speech, which dealt largely with asylum matters. Asylum is under debate for obvious political reasons, providing a nice bit of knock-about, a few good headlines and, perhaps, a little embarrassment. I shall leave others to deal with it. I prefer to take the opportunity to deal with a number of immigration matters, which arise from having thousands of constituents who were either born in the Indian subcontinent or whose mum and dad were born there while they were born here, who, over the years, have had problems with the immigration rules. I prefer to leave asylum to the heavy hitters, who have much in their past to cover up and will do their best to do so, and deal with immigration.
I offer the Government my condolences because this is another matter where 18 years of neglect and hostility by some of the culprits smiling on the Opposition Benches could not be put right in the two and a half years that Labour has been in government. The dates and times, the run-down of staff and the ordering of computers, are all grist to that mill.
I congratulate the Government on a number of immigration matters. First—this might be seen as a slightly back-handed compliment because it concerns a Minister from another Department—I congratulate the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). Immigration matters are shared between the Home Office and the Foreign Office, and my hon. Friend has, uniquely, started surgeries for all hon. Members with difficult immigration problems. When a Minister deals with immigration problems, he does not have much spare time, he does not get much thanks, he has a fair amount of reading and he probably has 649 hon. Members coming


to him with problems. Therefore, to put aside time to meet hon. Members by appointment is particularly courageous, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on that initiative. I hope that it spreads to others.
The other matter to which I want to refer was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), and the context in which she mentioned it was sad. The Home Secretary and the Government must be congratulated on the removal of the primary purpose rule within months of taking office. That was probably the most pernicious and vicious piece of legislation, the most blatant piece of race legislation, which affected individuals, and young individuals in the main, ever to have been put on the statute book. When it was consigned to history within months of Labour taking office, I thought that no one grieved.
It is sad that, in the context of what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said was an attempt at a firm and fair immigration policy, she alluded to the removal of that measure as bad. I hope that, when the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) replies, he makes it clear, for the relief of many British people and many serious politicians on both sides of the House, that that pernicious piece of legislation is deservedly buried and will not reappear whatever happens. I see some Conservative Members shake their heads, but I hope that they represent the minority. Within months of taking office, the Labour Government removed that provision, and they deserve to be congratulated on that.
I also congratulate the Government on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, particularly the reinstatement of appeals for visitors who have been refused a visitor's visa, a right which was removed by the previous Government in 1993, placing an undeserved burden on the shoulders of entry clearance officers, who have a hard enough job without that. I am often critical of them and sometimes furious with them, but they have an unenviable job. When they were given the final say on visitors, that proved the last straw for many of them. However, I am told by the Minister that, in October, those appeals will be reintroduced with a comprehensive system of fast tracking, which will deal with the differences that often arise in immigration cases where time matters.
Having said that, I should like quietly to ask Ministers to rethink two matters. One concerns a sad legacy that we inherited on which we should have wanted to act immediately, and it involves DNA testing. I have come across several cases which reveal an outrageous bureaucracy and hard-heartedness, whereby parents have had the right to come here with their children, but one of their children, because of the paucity of records in the Indian subcontinent, is singled out as not being their true child and so is prevented from coming here. Incredibly, that means that a youngster is deliberately separated from his or her family and raised in another country with relatives while his or her bothers or sisters are raised here with their mum and dad.
I speak with feeling on the matter because I have one particular case that I have raised with the Home Secretary and on which I shall continue to campaign until my dying day. One does not have to have been in a happy family to know what family life is all about. For us as a state

deliberately to separate children from their mum and dad and brothers and sisters so that they grow up without them is unacceptable.
The problem caused by the lack of records was put right by DNA testing. That allowed any dispute to be settled scientifically. I hope that there is not an hon. Member who would not want that wrong to be put right if scientific evidence showed that we had deprived an individual of a family life and all that goes with it. We have done that and we are continuing to do so. That is the saddest thing that any Government or human being could do. What would happen in other aspects of Home Office life—what would have happened to the Birmingham Six—if we said that, although scientific evidence had proved that a wrong had been committed, we were not prepared to put it right? I cannot think of an hon. Member who would not be on his feet objecting to that.
I remember the Friday afternoon when my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised the issue of first world war pardons. Men were shot or imprisoned 80 years ago and all were dishonoured, but medical evidence on their condition emerged years later and the House is united in its determination to put things right. However, there is studied indifference to the DNA issue.

Ms Oona King: When DNA testing proves conclusively that children have been denied the right to be brought up with their family, would not the offer of a concession by the Home Office be a common-sense way forward? Will my hon. Friend push the Minister further on that point?

Mr. Mudie: I am grateful for that intervention, but may I consult my notes? I should have said that the Home Office accepted that a wrong had been done, but the individual was over 18 by that time and it said, "Of course you're right, but you're past 18 and you cannot come in." One should not say to someone whose childhood was taken away as he could not be brought up by his mum and dad, "We have done you no wrong." Anybody with any decency about him would say, "We have committed a grievous sin and we should put it right." I would welcome any concessions and plead with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to reconsider the decision on this matter.

Sir Peter Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, sometimes, the problem occurs because the family substitutes a nephew or niece on its list and that person is allowed in? Is he suggesting that such a person would be returned? I do not think so. The problem is more difficult than he describes.

Mr. Mudie: The problem is difficult. It has various aspects such as the passage of time and the person involved growing up and having a family, but I cannot get away from the fact that we wrongly separated individuals from their family. How should we behave? The House should not look around for excuses, but face up to the fact that we made a mistake, although not deliberately. [Interruption.] I am being signalled to finish, and quite rightly, but I want to discuss bonds.
I am in difficulty, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald raised this point and I am in the same position as her. I confess that I discovered that


the consultation document had been sent out only as I was researching my speech. We are too late. The 1999 Act refers to the bond as well, so I hold my hands up. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister not to put bonds for visitors into operation until we have seen how the re-established appeals procedure works. She is quite right to say that a number of constituents have said to Members, "If they don't believe us, let us put up a bond." Members have passed that on to the Home Office and, as a listening Government, we have put the proposal into legislation. However, a number of Members were influenced by the past seven years, when visitors' rights of appeal were not permitted.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has mentioned bonds. Does he agree that their introduction would discriminate against the poorest people and be divisive for families in this country? They would be discriminatory because they will, I understand, be introduced under a pilot scheme applying to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. That will cause untold anger among those in the south Asian community in this country, who will feel that the Government are discriminating against them.

Mr. Mudie: I do myself no good with the Home Secretary, but I agree with every word that my hon. Friend says. These words from the consultation document should fill any Home Office Minister with dread:
We envisage that a bond will only be requested by an Entry Clearance Officer … in certain circumstances.
What are those circumstances?
This will be when the ECO is satisfied that all other requirements of the visitor rules are met, but there is reason to doubt that someone who has applied for a visa visit to come to the UK … intends to return to their own country.
I cannot understand why a person should not get a visa if he has met all the conditions that we have imposed. We could apply that paragraph to the other part of the Home Office and tell the police, "Have this individual, go through every question and get his alibi, but if you have a gut feeling, despite him giving perfect answers, put a bond on him because your gut feeling is enough," but we would not get such legislation past the House. In these circumstances, a person might satisfy every condition and the entry clearance officer might say, "Okay," but he still may face a bond.
I do not think that the bond will be £10,000—that figure represents a hit of kite flying to make £5,000 satisfactory—but it will have to be substantial if it is to act as a deterrent. That is wrong. We should either introduce bonds on the facts and be able to check those facts on appeal or leave things—[Interruption.] I shall finish soon, to the relief of the Whip.
Constituents should be able to say to us, "I can afford it. Put a bond on and I'll pay it," but what would happen to the constituent who cannot afford a bond? This story is not hypothetical. A woman constituent of mine was dying in a hospice and was days from going into a fatal coma. Her brother and three sisters were in Pakistan. She asked them to come and they wanted to see her. The ECO let the younger sister in, but the other two were turned down. They would not be turned down now, but would have a bond placed on them. Such a family would have to find £10,000 to come here to see a dying sister. I could provide other instances in which the ECO turned people down,

despite the facts. Every Member of the House knows such stories. The Government have introduced the proposal for the right reason, but I appeal for it not to be implemented until we have re-established the appeal system in October, seen how it works and gained confidence in an objective adjudicator who listens to the facts.

Mr. Michael Howard: I do not want to add to the difficulties of the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) with the Home Secretary, but I, too, agree with his last point and what he said about the bond. He made a powerful case against the proposal. While I am in agreement mode, I agree with the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on the work of the immigration service. Although there is no doubt that it does a tremendous amount of hard and conscientious work—it is right to pay tribute to that—the debate is about not its efforts, but the system in which it has to operate.
First, I must nail the repeated falsehoods so sedulously propagated by Ministers from the Prime Minister down—he was at it at Question Time today—whenever they discuss these issues. They never comment without blaming the previous Government for the appalling mess that they themselves created. There is absolutely no foundation whatever for those allegations. Let me repeat the figures, although they are a matter of record. I last quoted them in the House during our debate on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and invited the Home Secretary to challenge them. He conspicuously refused that invitation.
In 1996, which was the last full year of the previous Government's term, there were 29,640 asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. The year before, the number was almost 44,000—to be exact, 43,965. That reduction was a direct result of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, for which I was responsible, and of the associated benefit changes for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was responsible.
If we compare the figures month by month—a much fairer comparison, as the changes were not in force for the whole of 1996—we see that the percentage reduction was even greater than that represented by the figures that I have just given. If, for example, we compare the figures for May 1996 with those of May 1995, we see that the reduction was nearly 50 per cent. That was the record of the last Government: a record of substantial progress. Let us compare those figures with the record of the present Government. The number of asylum seekers in 1999 was not 29,640 but 71,160, nearly two and a half times as many.
Those are national figures. I represent a part of Kent that has had to bear more—much more—than its fair share of the burden that inevitably arises as a result of the numbers; and the numbers in Kent are stark. In the first six months of the financial year 1996–97, fewer than 50 in-country asylum seekers—those who apply for asylum after entering the country—were dealt with by Kent county council. Since 19 August last year, less than six months ago, the council has dealt with more than 5,000 in-country asylum seekers. That is the measure of the total failure—the total abdication of responsibility—of the present Government.

Fiona Mactaggart: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman fails to recognise is that those figures


reflect the fact that asylum seekers are coming from different parts of the world. That is the main reason for the increase in the United Kingdom, and the main reason for the differential between the impact on Kent and the impact elsewhere. The vast bulk of the increase is represented by an increase in the number of asylum seekers from Europe; the number of asylum seekers from Africa is still significantly lower than it was in the 1980s. I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is misleading the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady should withdraw that remark.

Fiona Mactaggart: I did not say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was intentionally misleading the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, the hon. Lady should qualify her remark.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady's assertion is wholly unconvincing. I shall deal with the source of asylum seekers later.

Mr. Shaw: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howard: I will, but then I must make progress.

Mr. Shaw: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman regret the fact that the 1996 Act placed the burden of funding asylum seekers on councils such as our own Kent county council? Does he not agree that national Government should bear the financial responsibility, as Kent county council now says?

Mr. Howard: The 1996 Act did not do that. The Home Secretary was partly right in what he said earlier. The Act had the dramatic impact to which I have referred. As the Home Secretary rightly pointed out, that impact was then blunted by a High Court decision on judicial review, which placed the burden to which the hon. Gentleman refers on local authorities, and distorted the intended effect of the Act.
The Home Secretary was right about that, but he was wrong in saying that the judicial review decision was made in the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. In fact, it was made in a lower court; and there were two things that the present Government could and should have done to restore the original effect of the 1996 Act.
First, the Government could and should have appealed against the decision made on judicial review. They decided not to pursue such an appeal. Secondly, they could and should have introduced subsequent legislation to restore the good effect of the 1996 Act. I am sure that they would have had the full support of the Opposition had they done so. If that had been done, the 1996 Act would have continued to have the dramatic, beneficial and constructive impact that it had in 1996.
I must say one more thing about Kent. I must reproach and reprove the Government for the fact that they have yet to reimburse Kent county council for the costs that it has incurred in dealing with this problem.
I have concentrated on the figures relating to the number of people seeking asylum here, but the last Government also made progress in regard to the number of applications dealt with. In the last year of Conservative government, the number was nearly 50 per cent. up on that of the previous year. Moreover, we managed to reduce the backlog of applications by 10,000. Responsibility for the present mess rests squarely—indeed, exclusively—on the shoulders of the present Government. Those are the facts of the matter.
I have always made it clear that we in this country should continue to act in accordance with our honourable tradition of granting refuge to those who genuinely flee persecution, and none of the changes made by the last Government affected the entitlement of genuine refugees to obtain asylum here. But it is surely crystal clear that our arrangements are being abused—and "abused" is the right word.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who I am sorry to see is no longer present, talked absolute nonsense when he compared an application for asylum that failed with an application for a job that failed. It is a ridiculous comparison: we need only glance at the latest figures in the most cursory way to see that that is so. In every single month of 1999 since May, far the largest number of asylum seekers came from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; almost all came, or claimed to have come, from Kosovo.
It is of course true that, in May and June last year, terrible atrocities were committed in Kosovo. I have no doubt that, at the time, many genuine refugees from that troubled land applied for asylum here, and may well have been entitled to asylum here. Since July, however, we and other countries have had armies in Kosovo. They are there to ensure that persecution does not take place. It is surely ludicrous that we should undertake the burden of an expensive military presence in that land to make it safe, and at the same time allow large numbers of people from that land to enter this country alleging that it is not safe. That is an inexplicable and indefensible state of affairs.
The Government have in their hands a remedy for this abuse. The provisions in the 1996 Act that enabled applications from certain listed countries to be made subject to an accelerated appeal process are still on the statute book. The Government have acknowledged that no unfairness has resulted from the operation of that power. They could have added months ago, and could add today, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the list. That single step—which I asked the Home Secretary to take as long ago as 9 September—could have a dramatic impact on the scale of the problem.
I urge the Government to take that step, and also to take the steps urged on them by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). If they do not, they will simply confirm the widely held view that they lack the political will to sort out the mess for which they, and they alone, are responsible.

Mr. Roger Godsiff: I know that time is short and others wish to speak, so I shall confine myself to relatively few points.
I welcome the opportunity to debate immigration policy. As was said earlier, the issue can provoke heated comments, and we must tread carefully. Regrettably,


certain comments made by Opposition Members about asylum policy seemed to be along the lines of "Our asylum policy shambles was not as bad as your asylum policy shambles", rather than contributing to a debate on the merits of the policy.
I do not want to talk about asylum policy. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), I will leave that to others to slug out. Similarly, I do not want to talk about immigration policy in terms of the racketeers, the people who prey upon desperate individuals, cram them into the backs of lorries and get them into the country, having taken large sums of money off them. I pay tribute to the work of the immigration service in trying to stop those rackets. I certainly support the policy of making more resources available to the immigration service to deal with the problem.
I do not want to talk either about immigrants coming into this country via the European Union. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) raised that issue in a Westminster Hall debate recently, when it was adequately covered. Instead, I want to talk about another aspect of Home Office policy, but before doing so I shall comment on refugee status. This country has had a long and honourable tradition over many hundreds of years of taking in refugees who have fled from political persecution. I would like that always to be the position. However, as a Member who has many constituents who have come from the Indian subcontinent and from other parts of the world, I have to say that the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees has on many occasions been flagrantly abused. Not only that, unscrupulous solicitors and immigration advisers have used it as a device to make money, not as a means of helping the individuals concerned.
When the 1951 convention was brought into force, we lived in an entirely different world from the one we now occupy. The world had recently been devastated by a world war and there had been mass displacements of populations. Millions of people were swilling around who had suffered political persecution. I am not saying that political persecution does not exist in the world now, but escape from poverty is often the prime factor in immigration cases, not escape from persecution.
I shall direct my remarks to a specific aspect of Home Office policy. I say Home Office policy—not Conservative policy or Labour policy—for reasons that I hope will become apparent. In effect, it is a Home Office tablet of stone. The immigration service fights a valiant battle to deal with organised racketeering, but the service knows that it is rather like trying to put its finger into a dam. The United Kingdom, for reasons best known to Home Office officials, chooses not to have an embarkation policy, unlike America and Australia, for example.
We know that in 1996, 849,060 people came to this country on short-term visas. In 1997, 851,000 came here. The Home Office does not have the slightest idea whether 849,060 left or whether one left. That is because there is no means of knowing. That means that once someone has entered the country he can stay here for the rest of his life, unless he runs into officialdom, is picked up by the police for a driving offence or runs into problems with the Benefits Agency, for example. Least of all does the Home Office know whether that individual has left.
I feel strongly because entry clearance officers are aware of the situation. All the pressure goes on them, if they have the slightest doubt about an individual, to say

no. If he is a young man from the Indian subcontinent and a subsistence farmer, the entry clearance officer will put on the refusal notice, "I suspect that you may try to remain in the United Kingdom. Therefore permission is refused." That will happen despite the young man meeting all the other criteria.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said, the reintroduction of the appeal system for visitors is to be welcomed, particularly if it is a fast-track system. However, the lack of embarkation controls means that entry clearance officers are doing their job blind. Good entry clearance officers will want to know whether their judgment is correct. When they interview someone and say, "Right, I will give you a visa", they will want to know whether that person complied with the terms of the visa and returned to their country before the visa expired after six months. However, as the system stands—it is not a Labour Government system but one that the previous Conservative Government were happy to operate for 18 years—that information will not be available.
That is Home Office policy, but why? It is because the Home Office says, "We are not going to pay for the cost of embarkation controls. Our budget was not funded for that." If the repercussions are that the Lord Chancellor's Department has to deal with all the appeals, for example, there will be more abuse of the benefits system. However, the Home Office says, "It is not our problem. It is nothing to do with us." In the modern world of the new millennium, we can go out shopping to—I was about to say Asda, but our friend is not in the Chamber, and neither is our new friend from Sainsbury—a supermarket and use a swipe card. We can even get reward points. However, the immigration service cannot have a system whereby people entering the country can be swiped in, nor one that swipes them out when they leave. That is ridiculous and dangerous.
Most of the debates that take place in this country on immigration are heavily clouded with prejudice, perception and myth. Why is it that the far right in British politics has immigration policy as its first policy, which is to kick out the immigrants? It takes that position because it knows that in doing so it is on strong ground. Its arguments can never be countered by fact. It is always prejudice, perception and myth. I regret to say that the Home Office seems to be happy to allow that to happen.
I can see no reason why we cannot have rational debates on immigration policy that are based on fact. Why cannot we debate rationally whether this country should allow further primary immigration? Personally, I do not think that it is necessary, but why cannot we discuss it? Why cannot we discuss what policies we need to put in place to catch the people who are abusing the system? In 1996, 849,060 people came to this country as visitors. If 849,059 went back, I would gladly concede that we do not need to put a paraphernalia of controls in place to deal with the situation. If only one went back, we would need to have such discussions.
I hope that the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), and the Secretary of State will be prepared to take on the forces of conservatism that are obviously alive and kicking in the Home Office. After the disappearing Government amendment, Ministers' feelings towards the Home Office may be that much more psyched up. I hope that they are very psyched up. They will do race relations in this country a great service if they are


prepared to take on Home Office officials' conservative attitude, which has nothing to do with joined-up government. They say, "We will not have sensible controls because we are not going to pay. If another part of Government wants to pick up the cost, it will be their problem."
I hope that the Minister can assure me that she and her colleagues will look again at the implementation of sensible embarkation controls. After all, Britain is an island and there are only 50 points of legal entry into the country. If Australia and the United States can do it, I fail to understand why we cannot.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: In the spring of 1992, I had very little to do with my life, the reason being that, a little while earlier, the electors of Croydon, North-West, in their wisdom, probably rightly, decided that they would like a Labour Member of Parliament. There I was, wondering how to conduct my life, when the then Home Secretary kindly contacted me and, with my background in immigration work in Croydon, asked me to produce a report, which I did.
That led to the formation of the Immigration Advisory Service, which I chaired and was trustee of for several years. I enjoyed my work in immigration greatly. I learned that it was important to give help with compassion and to approach topics with good sense and moderate language. How right the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) was about the DNA point, by the way. We need not emotive conversations, but debates with a bit of good hard sense.
With that background and knowing that there had been 4,000 applications for asylum in this country in 1988, which had risen to 70,000 or more in 1999, I took some advice over the weekend. My constituency of Woking has a large, settled Pakistani minority, so I went to see one of the leaders of that group. I said, "There is a big debate on Tuesday about immigration and asylum." He said, "I have some advice, which you can take to the Home Secretary for me." I said, "You know the background. There is a big backlog of cases. There is an increasing number of asylum applications year after year."
That person's advice was, "It is quite simple. What we need in this country is more people making quick decisions about asylum applications. We need more adjudicators to hear appeals quickly, decisions to be made fast, short appeal times, one line of appeal, rather than several, final appeals to be made fast, and the results of those appeals to be enforced quickly. We do not want a refusal all the way up the line, followed by no enforcement action. Take that back to the House of Commons because that is the policy that is in the interest of the settled people in Woking. Tell your friend the Home Secretary that." He still thinks that I am a Labour Member; I have not told him yet that I am not. Did not what he said make good sense? This country needs such policies.
One would think that the Home Secretary realises that, over the past two or three years, asylum applications in this country have gone up and up and need to be looked at carefully. When the applications for asylum go up, so does the backlog of cases. We were told in May last year

that the backlog of asylum applications awaiting initial decision was 52,000. By the end of September, the figure was 90,000. By now, it is well over 100,000. It must be obvious to anyone that some serious action is needed.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend will agree that the backlog depends as well on the number of cases that are determined. Does he share my curiosity to hear the Home Secretary say that the latest figure for the number of applications that has been determined was nudging 4,000? Home Office asylum statistics that I have received show that the figure is only 2,320 and that there has been a further decline in the number since last summer?

Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend, who has a distinguished background in immigration and asylum, is right.
Apart from the backlog, I want to look at two other categories of people. One is those who are seeking asylum in this country and with whom the Government have lost contact. Many of those seeking asylum disappear in our system and are never heard of again. I do not think that those are genuine people. They should not benefit from Government inefficiency, but I regret that they do.
In a written question, I asked the Home Secretary for an estimate of the number of people seeking asylum with whom the Government had lost contact completely. His response in 1998 was that he thought that there were possibly 14,000 such people, plus their dependants, in this country.
The second category is those who lose all their rights of appeal in respect of either asylum or immigration. What has happened to them? I have suggested to the authorities that there are tens of thousands of such people in this country, who, having lost all their rights of appeal, are never dealt with further. They are lost to the system and stay here. It makes one wonder what the point is of an appeal.
When I asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), about that in March 1999, I was told that it was estimated that some 24,000 people, plus their dependants, lost every right of appeal all the way through and were still here, against whom no action had been taken.
When the permanent under-secretary at the Home Office, Mr. David Omand, came to the Select Committee on Home Affairs last year, I discussed with him the retrieval system. I said:
Am I right in saying that there are tens of thousands of such people at large in the country
who have lost all their appeals, with whom there is no contact and for whom there is no retrieval system? He agreed that the number of such people was extremely large. He could not give the actual figure. I said that it was a ludicrous world. We had an appeal system whereby people could appeal all the way up, lose all the way up, lose their case and still have less than a 10 or 20 per cent. chance of ever being found and deported from the country. He replied:
I agree entirely … We"—
the Government and Home Office
are trying to … get ourselves out of the absurd situation that you have described.


He described it, I regret to say, as "a losing battle." That is one of the problems. It is all very well hearing and dismissing appeals, but, after that, one does absolutely nothing. That means that the interests of genuine asylum applicants are not met and are damaged.

Fiona Mactaggart: I intervene precisely on that point. One of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues has suggested that enforcement action has been taken against only 350 asylum seekers. That seems to be a peculiar misreading of Home Office statistics. I am struck by the fact that, since the election of the Government, enforcement action has been more rigorous. From a proper reading of the table, it seems to have more than doubled: about 1,290 asylum seekers had enforcement action taken against them in 1995 and 3,430 in 1998. Will he join me in welcoming the more rigorous enforcement action and the increase in the hearings of appeals, which speed up the system in the way in which he advises?

Mr. Malins: I would join the hon. Lady if I thought that the enforcement action was more rigorous, but I think that it is all talk and no action. In answer to a parliamentary question on the issue that I tabled to the Home Secretary, I was told that, in 1998, only 350 failed asylum seekers left as a result of deportation orders made against them.
Where are the tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers now? Who is paying for their upkeep, and why should the ratepayer or taxpayer pay for it when the applicants have failed in their attempts all the way down the line? Where are the tens of thousands who have lost their immigration and other appeals all the way down the line, but are still in the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with an important point. However, given his expertise in the matter, I am slightly surprised at some of his comments. He will know that we are discussing deportation orders, whereas very many asylum seekers in the United Kingdom enter as clandestine entrants. They are therefore subject to administrative removal, not to deportation orders.

Mr. Malins: I hear what the Minister says, and there is some merit in her final point. However, the point that I made to her was based precisely on a parliamentary answer that I have been given.
The general point—no hon. Member can deny it—is that tens of thousands of people lose their immigration appeals all the way down the line but never leave. Moreover, tens of thousands of people with answers to their asylum applications pending lose contact entirely with the Home Office.
When people claim asylum in the United Kingdom, the Government have to ensure that, first, the Home Office knows how to keep in contact with them, rather than lose contact completely; secondly, their cases are heard quickly; thirdly, when the result is known, an appeal is heard soon and quickly; and, fourthly, and very importantly, any enforcement is really acted upon, rather than completely ignored. Unless the Government are prepared to do that, the problem will only get ever worse. The Labour party should also know that those who are genuine asylum applicants and lawfully settled here—and I know many of them—suffer from the problem as much as anyone else does.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am glad that the tone of the debate has changed. In its first half hour or three quarters of an hour, I felt that we were listening simply to hysteria and to attacks on the Government's record. I say that as someone who has not always supported the Government on the issue, and—unlike any Tory Members in the Chamber—I voted against the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, although I did vote for the proposed amendment to it to restore benefits.
I realise, however, that since the general election visitor visa appeals have been restored, the primary purpose rule has been changed, and action has been taken on same sex relationships and to help the victims of domestic violence. The nature of the Home Office has also changed—it is more open now, and we are able, for example, to go there to read country assessments. All the changes add up to an enormous improvement on previous practice. I also certainly do not regard the Minister as a soft touch when I go to her with cases, but sometimes wish that she was a rather softer touch on those cases.
The debate has sometimes shied away from discussing the issue—I am glad that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised it—of the central principles of asylum policy. When people come to us asking for asylum, it is because they have been persecuted. Subsequently, we are supposed to fulfil the international obligations that we accepted in the 1951 convention on refugees.
It is extremely depressing that, whenever there is a debate on asylum either inside or outside the House, it is conducted entirely in negative terms—such as, "These people are frauds and benefits scroungers." In my constituency advice surgeries, I have seen people who make asylum claims that I think are entirely unfounded, and I have told them so. However, in many of those cases they have quite good reasons to be allowed to remain in the country and could use good mechanisms to achieve it, but they have been pushed into making a stupid asylum claim by a solicitor or a so-called immigration adviser.
It is regrettable that, in the past decade, we have built our asylum and immigration policy on the basis of negative assertions. The debate always seems to start with the question, "How can we deal with fraud?", rather than with questions such as, "What are our international obligations on asylum? What should they be? What type of immigration policy do we want?" It seems sometimes as though we are not talking about people, but we are—we are talking about people's lives.
The point on the condition and origin of refugees has already been made and I shall not labour it. However, most refugees are not—and never will be—in Europe. Most refugees are women and children, and most of them go to poor countries adjacent to the countries from which they had to flee. I am sure that many hon. Members in the Chamber will have seen refugee camps, perhaps in Africa, in the middle east, or perhaps even in Serbia. There are probably more refugees in Serbia than in any other country in Europe. It may not be popular to draw attention to the fact—but it is true—that there are very large numbers of refugees in Serbia.
The top four countries from which we receive asylum seekers are the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. Anyone who knows what has been happening in those countries should not be surprised


about the numbers of refugees that they have produced. Regardless of whether we agreed with the bombing, the fact is that we have just had the biggest war in Europe for 50 years. Wars generate refugees. All refugees do not return to their home simply because the war and the bombing have ended. In the history of movements of people, that has never happened. It just does not happen like that.
The sooner that Governments stop pretending that we can really fundamentally affect the number of people applying for asylum here with our internal laws, the better. I have never believed the argument that benefits are a draw. No serious evidence has ever been produced to back up that argument. Some people say, "When benefits were taken away, the number of applications decreased", but the number increased later. If we seriously compare the number of in-country applications and port applications before and after benefits were withdrawn from applicants, the benefits argument does not stand up. If benefits had been the draw, we would have had far more fraud and applications refused at ports of entry—which is how one keeps benefits—but that has simply not happened. The issue is far more complicated than that.
The first part of this debate really should cause us some concern, because what is happening to asylum seekers in the United Kingdom is worrying. Hostility towards asylum seekers is being generated by the impression that they are all fraudulent. Very real hostility is being encountered by those who say they are asylum seekers or refugees.
We are also saying to people outside London and the south-east, "It's a good idea to disperse applicants. We're going to send you people who are frauds and scroungers." They must think that that is a great idea, after that image of applicants has been created. I have some very real concerns about the way in which the interim support scheme is being operated, and the destitution of some of those who are being cut off from support.
I shall keep my remarks brief, given the time limitations. My final point is on economic migration, and the idea that we shall be able to address the issue of economic migration in our immigration and asylum law. Anyone who believes that is living in a dream world. The pressures of economic migration will not be controlled through asylum and immigration law. Some of the countries that are being complained about now—including Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Hungary and Romania—already have association agreements with the European Union allowing economic migration. Soon they will be full members of the EU with freedom of movement throughout the Union. We are not going to address the issue through asylum and immigration law.
We encourage economic migration when it suits us. We are happy to receive a nurse or a doctor or a business man with a lot of money. It is easy for the rich to enter the UK. We will not turn off the pressure of economic migration through immigration and asylum law. We need to deal with it through foreign policy, aid, investment, trade and other mechanisms. Dealing with economic migration should not be the driving force for asylum and immigration policy. We are in danger of concentrating on keeping people out when we have undertaken in international conventions to help people who have been persecuted.

Mr. Peter Lilley: I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on selecting this important issue for debate. It is a sensitive, emotive and serious issue—in short, precisely the sort of issue that the House ought to debate. It is right that the Opposition should make time for it if the Government do not.
We have to deal with the issue sensitively. Every Member of Parliament will have had to deal with asylum seekers who, at worst—albeit rarely—have suffered torture or persecution, and, at least, come from impoverished and distressed countries. It is an emotive issue because the scale of the problem causes concern in this country. Many people recognise that a great proportion of asylum seekers are not genuine refugees. That concern leads to resentment, which is easily turned against the asylum seekers. I emphatically believe that that is wrong. Even those who are what the Prime Minister today called bogus asylum seekers—economic migrants—deserve our sympathy. They come from miserably poor and insecure countries. Many of them are enterprising and talented people responding to opportunities in our law and our system.
The real targets of public resentment and blame should be those in the media, politics and the law who, perhaps inadvertently, have created a system that generates incentives and opportunities for people to cross the world in large numbers and drive a coach and horses through our original immigration laws. Most pernicious of all are those who try to suppress debate on the subject by pretending that there is no serious problem, saying that all asylum seekers are genuine political refugees or trying to silence critics of the present system by accusing them of being the friends of torturers or racists. We have heard disgraceful accusations that the Conservatives are playing the race card. We have made no attempt to do that. I object strongly to people who play the racism card and try to smear those who enter into debate on this serious issue.
The issue is serious because of its scale and growth. Last year there were 71,000 applications for asylum in this country. That understates the problem, because the Government do not include the dependants of asylum seekers in that figure. It is time that they did. The scale of the problem is so great that they should collect and report that information. On UNHCR figures, that means that there are more than 90,000 people applying, including dependants. Even that understates the true picture, because it does not include other dependants who will be brought over by those who are given the right to remain.
Nearly 100,000 people is a huge number. The Government try to give the impression that large numbers are being returned at the end of the process. The Home Secretary came up with some extraordinary figures that either were wrong or which contradict the figures published by the Government. His most recent document for December shows that there were 6,845 removals and voluntary departures of asylum applicants from this country in 1998, which is the last full year for which figures are available. That compares with the very large number of applications and the total of 67,000 people against whom deportation or illegal entry action had been initiated by 4 January 1999. That information comes from a former Minister of State at the Home Office in the excellent House of Commons review on the subject.
A high proportion of the people concerned are staying in this country. That is more than the population of Hitchin and Harpenden, the two main towns in my constituency. I am not suggesting that my constituents are suddenly going to be swamped by nearly 100,000 people. For the most part, they will stay in city centres, perhaps in squalid properties. However, they have to be housed and the effects will ripple out. We have to provide extra housing for the extra people in the country. The housing growth projections assume a net 5,000 asylum seekers staying in this country every year. That was obviously a fallacious figure when it was fed into the system in 1996 or 1997. I suspect that it was chosen for politically correct reasons to diminish the apparent size of the problem, offsetting it with some equally bogus figures elsewhere in the calculation. The Government must come clean on whether they are acknowledging the scale of the problem and its implications for housing in this country.

Mr. Gale: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Minister to confirm the information given in a briefing earlier this week that local authorities will be expected to provide 40 per cent. of the necessary housing from their stock?

Mr. Lilley: I hope that the Minister will answer that point, as well as putting right the figures on deportations, removals and voluntary departures that her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave.
The numbers fell by 30 per cent. in the last full year of the previous Conservative Government, but they doubled in the first full year of this Government, at a time when the increase in the whole of the rest of Europe for which we have figures was less than one fifth. It is absurd for the Government to suggest that we are simply experiencing an inflow felt by all other countries. The figures fell under the Conservatives because we were prepared to take tough action on benefits, entry procedures and employment rules. All those measures were opposed by Labour. The figures have risen under this Government because of their actions, their incompetence—the Home Secretary cannot even get his amendment to our motion right, so he is unlikely to be able to organise a system as complex as the asylum procedures—and their failure to respond to changed circumstances.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the former Home Secretary, pointed out the change in circumstances since the liberation of Kosovo. It is now policed by NATO, but in December the largest number of asylum applications—more than 1,000—still came from the former Yugoslavia. There are also large numbers who have been given temporary exceptional leave to remain in the past. In response to parliamentary questions, Ministers have said that only 2,000 have returned to Kosovo. We risked our armed forces to ensure that those refugees could return. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the Home Secretary should now help them to do so.
The Government have failed to tackle the worst bottlenecks and to increase the number of departures and removals rather than increasing the flow of approvals earlier in the production line, where it has no effect on the final number of people leaving the country. However, I agree that whatever is done by any Government, there remains a major problem. It has resulted from the growing ease of travel across the world colliding with the

well-meaning gradual transformation of what was a limited discretionary power to grant access to refugees to a universal legal right.
The 1951 convention applied only to Europe and to events before 1951 and gave a strict definition of a refugee. We signed the convention in 1954 and in 1967 the protocol removed the limitations on time and place. In 1993, the convention entered into United Kingdom law. All that was well meaning, but the consequence has been to extend to every inhabitant on the globe who can find their way to this country the right to enter, to claim asylum, to receive benefits, to appeal when their application is turned down, to receive legal aid, to take their case to judicial review, if they are lucky, and, if they can string out the process for long enough, to stay indefinitely.
My personal view, which I do not think is shared by many of my hon. Friends, is that ultimately that system is untenable. I would ask the Home Secretary at least to look with an open mind at whether we can give some legalised right to everybody on the globe that can then be litigated in our courts. If he says that it is a matter of principle that they should have that legal right, how is it that we do not extend such a right to those who, within a country where persecution exists, find their way to the British embassy or high commission and ask whether they can come to Britain to claim asylum? They will be told, "Good Lord, no. That is not a criterion for coming to Britain. First, you have to convince us that you have a legitimate reason to come here, that you have the means to support yourself when you are here and that you have a return ticket. Just wanting to claim asylum is not allowed." Discretion is used and only in very extreme cases would such people be allowed to come here. We use discretion elsewhere, but we have created a legal, litigable right in this country which is the basis of the problem.

Ms Oona King: Looking at the global context, would it not be right to increase our spending on international development assistance to reduce the flow of refugees? That would be in marked contrast to what the previous Government did.

Mr. Lilley: We should certainly do all we can to improve the economic situation in those countries. I spent eight years of my life dealing with aid programmes. I have many criticisms of them, but I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that we should do all we can through trade, aid, investment and other means to remove the need for people to come here. However, at the end of the day we have a problem of enormous dimensions that the Government are trying to disguise, that their incompetence is aggravating and that has resulted in the United Kingdom ending up as a soft touch for people—with whom I have a great deal of sympathy—trying to get into this country, rather than providing a safe haven for the small number of genuine political refugees who we would all like to let in and who in the best circumstances would be let in by a much simpler procedure than we have at present.

Mr. Richard Allan: I am pleased to sum up on the Liberal Democrat amendment which was fortunately selected today. I was also pleased to hear the Home Secretary's comments—not only when he confessed his slight error in manipulating fax machines, but the


general liberal tone of his speech. I mean liberal not in the woolly sense, but in the rational sense. The right hon. Gentleman certainly advanced a more rational argument today than he has on many previous occasions about why we get a flow of asylum seekers and what the responsible factors are. It is not something that has always characterised the Government's contributions to the debate.
I am old-fashioned enough to feel that we should be judged on how we treat the worst off in society. I also believe that society does not end at the white cliffs of Dover. That view is held by many citizens in this country and many right hon. and hon. Members.
I was extremely proud of the way in which the people of Sheffield treated Kosovan refugees who arrived there during the height of the crisis. Children gave up their toys in order to make the refugees feel at home and the entire community supported them. As well as the most obvious cases, I feel some sympathy for individuals such as the Roma people from the Czech Republic who have a history of persecution. Tens of thousands of them were killed in concentration camps in the second world war and they now see their families and friends murdered in the streets by skinheads, often with very little response from the authorities.
Although they and many similar groups may not qualify for asylum, we must never forget to relate on a human level to people in such appalling circumstances whatever strict criteria of the refugee convention or the Immigration Rules apply. Many hon. Members would join me in praising the Labour Members who have to deal with such people on a daily basis for the way in which they have maintained their sympathy and humanity.
I thank the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for raising this important debate, although I question her motives in doing so and fundamentally disagree with virtually everything that she said.
Not only in the United Kingdom, but across Europe we are at a crossroads in terms of our attitude towards immigration and asylum policy. We have to decide whether to become fortress Europe or to accept reality and embrace globalisation. One view of the world is summarised by Jorg Haider and the Freedom party in Austria, which should fire a warning shot across Europe and remind us that some people are trying to create a climate of fear surrounding immigration and outsiders.
Although the debate today has been quite measured, some of the comments outside the House demonstrate that there are forces within the Conservative party seeking to play to a different agenda by scaremongering and making the problem seem worse than it is. That is despite the party leaders all signing up to the excellent declaration on behalf of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Refugee Council. It states that
the right to free political expression must not be abused in pursuit of political advantage by inciting or exploiting prejudice on the grounds of race, nationality or religion.
We need to take that seriously, as some people do not take such a charitable view and interpret differently words that are uttered in all innocence to create ugly scenes such as we have witnessed in towns in the south-east where incidents of public disorder have been deliberately stirred up.
The alternative is to accept reality and respond properly to the challenges of globalisation. That is what we have sought to do in our amendment today, which proposes a system of immigration and asylum which is genuinely able to cope with the legitimate demands of a world in which many people live and work and marry people in different countries. National borders are no longer the barriers that they used to be.
I remind right hon. and hon. Members that we should judge matters according to how we would wish to be treated. If I sought to marry someone from another country, I would not expect to have to jump through a huge number of hoops, to have my passport held by the authorities for six months at a time or to have to wait nine months to get an interview before a decision was taken as to whether I could live with my partner. However, that is the reality for many people today.
We live in a world where students who wish to travel face problems. We all desire and need a good-quality immigration service. The comments from the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) were particularly instructive in pointing to some of the detailed problems that arise on a day-to-day basis and are wholly unnecessary. Such problems should belong in the past. One of the positive messages that we are trying to draw out of the debate is that the immigration service should exist to assist citizens and not to erect a series of barriers to try to stop citizens of whatever country going about their perfectly legitimate business. The vast majority of people who apply for visitor visas or student visas or wish to marry are perfectly decent people who simply wish to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the modern world.
As we heard from the Home Secretary, recent asylum claims have been from people from countries such as the Former Republic of Yugoslavia and Sri Lanka, where there are clearly acknowledged problems. We need continually to remind ourselves that large numbers of people are being displaced because of the security situation, which is unlikely to improve. If we are planning for the next 10 or 20 years, we should invest in the asylum system because we shall need it. Let us not kid ourselves about global peace and security, as that is not our experience. Anyone with any understanding of foreign affairs will realise that we need to plan in order to cope with future influxes from flashpoint countries such as Kashmir. If anything blew up there, huge numbers of refugees would be displaced, many of whom would have a legitimate claim and wish to stay with relatives in the United Kingdom, for example.
In that climate, it is our duty to show real political leadership; to reaffirm this country's commitment fully to participate in international affairs and to support international justice and human rights. We live in a multi-racial and multi-cultural society. We have always done so—since the Celts mixed with the Romans, followed by the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings and the Normans. From that time, through the British empire and up to the present day, we have never been anything but a multi-ethnic society.
Many immigrants and refugees have made an enormous contribution to British society and will continue to do so. Where better to celebrate that than in this global city of London? London is one of the foremost global cities; it benefits tremendously from its people. A recent report showed that more than 300 languages are spoken by


London schoolchildren. That is not a threatening fact; it is one of the great strengths of the city and of this country and should be celebrated.
I hope that the House will make it clear that we should show true political leadership. We must not fall prey to the blandishments of the likes of Jörg Haider, offering people simplistic and inaccurate solutions to the genuine problems that we face on the economy and on the global movement of people. The solutions lie in immigration and asylum services that are adequate to meet current and likely future demand. I hope that the Government will tell us that they are prepared to commit serious resources to that matter.
I urge the House to support our amendment and thus to show that we can still take a rational and humane view on these matters. The Home Secretary spoke quite warmly to our amendment, and suggested that he did not find it wholly unpleasant. Despite his failure to condemn it, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will still feel able to support it.

Mr. David Lidington: The hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff), for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) have spoken with considerable parliamentary and constituency experience of immigration and asylum issues. I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tributes that have been paid by Members on both sides of the House to the work of the staff at the immigration and nationality directorate. I add a tribute to the work of the private office staff of the Minister of State at the Home Office; they have always handled my constituency casework with great courtesy and efficiency.

Mr. Straw: And Ministers?

Mr. Lidington: I have to disappoint the Home Secretary with a less generous verdict on Ministers.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) spoke with the benefit of several years of ministerial experience in handling these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) was able to speak both from his experience as a Member of Parliament and from his work, over several years, with the Immigration Advisory Service.
I was particularly struck by two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. He made telling comments about enforcement action. My answer to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) would be that the figures on page 27 of the Home Office statistical bulletin show that, in a period during which the number of asylum applications has more than doubled, the amount of enforcement work has not even remotely kept pace with that upsurge in the number of cases coming to the notice of the IND.
My hon. Friend referred to the position of ethnic minority communities. My experience is that some of the people who are most concerned to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of our asylum controls are members of British ethnic communities who are in this country

lawfully. They are concerned partly because many of them had to surmount all the hurdles described by the hon. Member for Leeds, East—they, or members of their families, may have had to wait for many years to come here—so they feel that it is grossly unfair for other people to enter the country unlawfully.
Furthermore, they are concerned because, sadly, as we saw last year in Dover, the security of Britain's ethnic communities within British society is questioned and comes under threat because some unpleasant racist groups take advantage of the genuine anxiety about failures in our system of asylum and immigration control. For that reason, it is right that the Opposition should assert our continuing commitment to work and speak for racial harmony and for the full integration of ethnic communities in Britain into the mainstream of our national life. We must also make it clear that we have grave concern as to the failures in the Government's management of the system of asylum and immigration control.
The Government tend to offer several excuses for the acknowledged crisis that faces the system. The first and easy excuse is to say that it is all the fault of the Tories; it is all down to the previous Government. That excuse wears thinner every time that it is deployed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe gave us an account of what really happened—the Government's inheritance of falling queues during 1997 continued in 1998, as a result of the legislation introduced by him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).
Not only does that point give the lie to the excuse peddled by the Government, their own words make it clear that their explanation is untenable. The Government's annual report in March 1999, when they had been in office for almost two years, stated, in respect of the problems at Croydon:
The situation has now settled and the majority of problems have been resolved.
The Government published a White Paper on immigration and asylum in July 1999—more than two years after they came to power—in which they set out the targets that they thought they were on track to achieve for the current financial year and for future financial years. Presumably, they had decided on those targets after taking into account any administrative difficulties, or any perceived trends in the number of applications. That excuse is untenable.
The Government's next excuse is that the problem is due to great international trends that are beyond our control. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden was right to describe the international dimension—the age of mass movements of people in which we live. However, the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Walthamstow over-egged the pudding; they appeared to be saying that the Government could do nothing to influence the number of applications to enter the UK.
It is true that last year in particular, because of the Kosovo crisis, there was tremendous pressure from the large movement of people into western European countries. However, the comparison between the relative shares of asylum seekers taken by countries is striking. Today, I studied the latest figures from the UNHCR—an unprejudiced source of information on the subject. Four European countries—Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland—account for more than 60 per cent. of all asylum applications.
The UK was the only country whose share of the total increased during 1999. Germany's share fell from 27 per cent. to 22 per cent. In the Netherlands, the share fell from 12.5 per cent. to 9 per cent., and in Switzerland, from 11.4 per cent. to 10.7 per cent. The UK share—

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lidington: I am sorry, I do not have time to do so.
The UK share rose from a little more than 16 per cent. in 1998 to almost 21 per cent. of the European total in 1999. That relative performance is an indication that we should be asking the Government for an explanation of their mismanagement of the system.
The Government keep telling us that everything is getting better and that there will be plenty of improvements. The difficulty is that we have heard that tale so many times before.
This morning, I found in my file one of a number of letters that I and other hon. Members had received from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who was formerly the Minister responsible for immigration. The letter was dated 5 March 1999 and it informed me that he expected things to return to normal by Easter of that year. The permanent secretary told the Public Accounts Committee that all current asylum claims would be cleared by October 2000, a target that the Minister confirmed to me recently in a written answer. I hope that when the Minister of State replies, she will explain how the Government will do that.
The Government's progress so far has been miserable. Their target for the current year was 59,000 asylum decisions to be taken, but the expected outturn is 38,000; their target was 46,000 appeals to be disposed of, but their expected performance is 22,100 and their target for the costs for the management of the IND and asylum seeker support was £587 million, but the actual cost is likely to be more than £800 million. That is an extra £200 million that could have been spent on hospitals, schools or the police. Instead, it is being frittered away because of ministerial mismanagement.
It is because of the incompetence of Ministers that the morale of their staff has collapsed and that genuine refugees have to endure the anxiety of waiting for many, many months. For those reasons, it is right that the Government should be censured and that the House should accept the Opposition motion.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Let me start on a note of agreement with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and other hon. Members from both sides of the House. They paid tribute to the work of the immigration service and the immigration and nationality directorate, which are doing the best that they can and are working very hard. That is why we are giving them the extra resources that they need and the resources of which they were starved by the previous Administration.
Although all that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) could offer them was their P45, I appreciate what the hon. Member for

Aylesbury said about the staff in my private office. They are excellent and they provide a very good service. The hon. Gentleman's comments will be warmly appreciated by very hard-working people.
Despite the unpromising beginning by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, this has been a good debate. Immigration and asylum are important issues, and they are sensitive and complex subjects. It is right to say that the decisions that we take sometimes may mean the difference between life and death, so we should not underestimate the sensitivity of what we are doing.
What are we trying to do? First, the key thing is that we are trying to honour our international obligations to genuine asylum seekers. The difficulty that we all face is that the huge numbers of unfounded applications being made at the moment devalue the whole concept of seeking asylum. I do not always see eye to eye with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on this subject, but I recognise his expertise on the matter as he chairs the all-party group on refugees. It is to uphold this country's proud tradition of giving asylum to genuine refugees that we must have a firm, fair and fast system.
The hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) were right to place the emphasis where they did and to speak about their constituency concerns. In the time that is open to me, I wish to respond to as many of the concerns expressed as I can.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked about waiting times. The average time for an initial decision in all asylum cases at the end of 1999 was 13 months.

Mr. Malins: That is far too long.

Mrs. Roche: The hon. Member is quite right. However, let us compare that with the period of 20 months that existed in April 1997. Perhaps, he will congratulate us on the figure.
While I respond to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), may I point out as gently as I can that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) rightly picked him up on his figures? He needs to read the table rather more carefully, and it is important to point out the difference between removal and a deportation order.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) also asked me to consider the figures. In 1996, 4,821 failed asylum seekers were removed and that contrasts with 6,800 in 1998. Before Conservative Members criticise our record, perhaps they should read the table properly. We publish it for their information.

Mr. Clappison: rose—

Mr. Lilley: rose—

Mrs. Roche: As I have mentioned the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, I shall give way to him. I must then make progress.

Mr. Lilley: Is the Minister repudiating the figures given by the Home Secretary at the Dispatch Box at the


beginning of the debate? He said that 35,000 people were removed or deported, but the figure for the most recent year is 6,845, including voluntary departures.

Mrs. Roche: I knew that I should not have accepted that intervention; I knew that it would not be worth while. I will answer the question, but first may I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I would never repudiate anything that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said? However, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the table, he will see that the figure that my right hon. Friend gave was for total removals. All that he has to do is read the figures—we provide them.

Mr. Lilley: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Roche: No.
I wish to deal with some of the other points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) raised the issue of DNA testing. This is a—

Mr. Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is something wrong with the hearing apparatus in the House. We all heard the Home Secretary say that 35,000 people had been removed or deported, but the figure in the document that he has published for removals and voluntary departures—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I can hear everything quite clearly from the Chair.

Mrs. Roche: I will try to spell the matter out very softly and slowly. The figure of 6,800 is for asylum seekers; the figure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave was the total figure for removals. It was the correct figure of 35,200.
To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East, DNA testing has been considered by the Home Secretary and the Home Office. The decisions taken at the time were made in good faith. My hon. Friend also asked about the bond system. Many Members of Parliament and community organisations support the scheme, but we shall consider the results of the consultation very quickly indeed.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) raised the question of asylum seekers and returns to Kosovo. He will be aware of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's announcement of 13 September 1999 that the concessions that had been made would end. We expect people to return and they are returning now.

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mrs. Roche: Please sit down. I can tell the House that 1,570 Kosovans have returned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) mentioned embarkation. It is important that we use our resources not at embarkation, but at entry so that we can target those who would seek to evade our control.
The hon. Member for Hallam mentioned general casework and students. I know that he has a particular interest in that matter, and we are dealing with it.
The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 represents the most comprehensive overhaul of immigration legislation for three decades, and it is essential to deliver our fairer, faster and firmer system. The civil penalty is crucial in delivering that system because it will deal with those who seek to evade our control. What do we get from the Conservative party? Filibustering through the night so that the measure will not be dealt with. What do we get when we regulate immigration advisers? Opposition from the Conservative party.
It is interesting to read what former Conservative Home Office Ministers have said. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) said on the Floor of the House,
I have mixed feelings about the 1996 legislation".—[Official Report, 26 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 828.]
On 29 August 1999, David Mellor said that the last Tory Government had left the immigration and asylum system in a complete and utter shambles.
It is important that we restore integrity to the system. That is why we are providing resources and it is why we introduced the Act. We shall ensure that we honour our international obligations and deter unfounded applications. We shall make sure that this country's proud record is upheld. I ask the House to reject the Conservative motion and the Liberal Democrats' amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 147.

Division No. 58]
[7.2 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Baker, Norman



Ballard, Jackie
Kirkwood, Archy


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Livsey, Richard


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Brand, Dr Peter
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Breed, Colin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Moore, Michael


Burnett, John
Oaten, Mark


Chidgey, David
Rendel, David


Cotter, Brian
Sanders, Adrian



Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fearn, Ronnie
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tyler, Paul


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Webb, Steve


Hancock, Mike
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Harris, Dr Evan
Willis, Phil


Harvey, Nick



Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. Andrew Stunell and


Keetch, Paul
Mr. Tom Brake.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Amess, David
Brady, Graham


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Baldry, Tony
Burns, Simon


Beggs, Roy
Butterfill, John


Bercow, John
Cash, William


Beresford, Sir Paul
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Blunt, Crispin



Body, Sir Richard
Chope, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Clappison, James


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)






Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Collins, Tim
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Colvin, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Moss, Malcolm


Cran, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Norman, Archie


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Ottaway, Richard


Day, Stephen
Page, Richard


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Paice, James


Duncan, Alan
Paterson, Owen


Duncan Smith, Iain
Pickles, Eric


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Faber, David
Prior, David


Fabricant, Michael
Randall, John


Fallon, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Flight, Howard
Robertson, Laurence


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fox, Dr Liam
Ruffley, David


Fraser, Christopher
St Aubyn, Nick


Gale, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gibb, Nick
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gill, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Green, Damian
Soames, Nicholas


Greenway, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Grieve, Dominic
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


Hague, Rt Hon William
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Steen, Anthony


Hammond, Philip
Streeter, Gary


Hawkins, Nick
Swayne, Desmond


Heald, Oliver
Syms, Robert


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Horam, John
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hunter, Andrew
Thompson, William


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Townend, John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tredinnick, David


Jenkin, Bernard
Trend, Michael


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tyrie, Andrew


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Viggers, Peter


Lansley, Andrew
Walter, Robert


Leigh, Edward
Wardle, Charles


Letwin, Oliver
Waterson, Nigel


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lidington, David
Whittingdale, John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Wilkinson, John


Loughton, Tim
Willetts, David


Luff, Peter
Wilshire, David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Yeo, Tim


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


McLoughlin, Patrick



Madel, Sir David
Tellers for the Noes:


Major, Rt Hon John
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Malins, Humfrey
Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Tim Collins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who—I believe—is not now present, not to have followed her voice in the Division? Is it in order for her not to follow her advice to her hon. Friends to vote against the Liberal Democrat amendment, which is explicitly critical of

the Government? Is that another example of the Lib-Lab pact, or just of the blatant incompetence of that shower over there?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would—I think—be usual for Members to vote in the way that they have exhorted others to vote, but, at the end of the day, how right hon. and hon. Members vote is entirely a matter for them.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 362.

Division No. 59]
[7.16 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hawkins, Nick


Amess, David
Hayes, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Heald, Oliver


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Baldry, Tony
Horam, John


Beggs, Roy
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bercow, John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hunter, Andrew


Blunt, Crispin
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Boswell, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brady, Graham
Lansley, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Leigh, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Letwin, Oliver


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Burns, Simon
Lidington, David


Butterfill, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cash, William
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clappison, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Collins, Tim
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Madel, Sir David


Cran, James
Major, Rt Hon John


Curry, Rt Hon David
Malins, Humfrey


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Day, Stephen
May, Mrs Theresa


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Duncan, Alan
Norman, Archie


Duncan Smith, Iain
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Faber, David
Page, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Paice, James


Fallon, Michael
Paterson, Owen


Flight, Howard
Pickles, Eric


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Prior, David


Fox, Dr Liam
Randall, John


Fraser, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Robertson, Laurence


Gibb, Nick
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gill, Christopher
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Ruffley, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
St Aubyn, Nick


Green, Damian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Greenway, John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Grieve, Dominic
Shepherd, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Soames, Nicholas


Hammond, Philip
Spelman, Mrs Caroline






Spicer, Sir Michael
Walter, Robert


Spring, Richard
Wardle, Charles


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waterson, Nigel


Steen, Anthony
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Streeter, Gary
Whittingdale, John


Swayne, Desmond
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Syms, Robert
Wilkinson, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Willetts, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Thompson, William
Yeo, Tim


Townend, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tredinnick, David



Trend, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tyrie, Andrew
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Peter Atkinson.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Chidgey, David


Ainger, Nick
Clapham, Michael


Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Allan, Richard
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Allen, Graham



Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Austin, John
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Baker, Norman
Clelland, David


Ballard, Jackie
Clwyd, Ann


Banks, Tony
Coaker, Vernon


Barnes, Harry
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barron, Kevin
Cohen, Harry


Battle, John
Coleman, Iain


Bayley, Hugh
Colman, Tony


Beard, Nigel
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Corston, Jean


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cotter, Brian


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cox, Tom


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Crausby, David


Benton, Joe
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Berry, Roger
Cummings, John


Best, Harold
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Betts, Clive



Blackman, Liz
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Blizzard, Bob
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Darvill, Keith


Borrow, David
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davidson, Ian


Brake, Tom
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Breed, Colin



Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dawson, Hilton


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Browne, Desmond
Denham, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dismore, Andrew


Burden, Richard
Dobbin, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Doran, Frank


Burnett, John
Dowd, Jim


Butler, Mrs Christine
Drew, David


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ennis, Jeff


Cann, Jamie
Etherington, Bill


Caplin, Ivor
Fearn, Ronnie


Casale, Roger
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Cawsey, Ian
Fisher, Mark


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Chaytor, David
Fitzsimons, Lorna





Flint, Caroline
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Flynn, Paul
Khabra, Piara S


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kidney, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fyfe, Maria
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Galloway, George
Kirkwood, Archy


Gardiner, Barry
Kumar, Dr Ashok


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Laxton, Bob


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lepper, David


Gerrard, Neil
Leslie, Christopher


Gibson, Dr Ian
Levitt, Tom


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Godsiff, Roger
Linton, Martin


Goggins, Paul
Livsey, Richard


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Llwyd, Elfyn


Grant, Bernie
Love, Andrew


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McAllion, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McAvoy, Thomas


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McCabe, Steve


Grocott, Bruce
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Grogan, John
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gunnell, John
Macdonald, Calum


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McDonnell, John


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McIsaac, Shona


Hancock, Mike
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mackinlay, Andrew


Harris, Dr Evan
McNamara, Kevin


Harvey, Nick
McNulty, Tony


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
MacShane, Denis


Healey, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mallaber, Judy


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Heppell, John
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hesford, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Hill, Keith
Maxton, John


Hinchliffe, David
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Meale, Alan


Hoey, Kate
Merron, Gillian


Hood, Jimmy
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hope, Phil
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Miller, Andrew


Howells, Dr Kim
Mitchell, Austin


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moore, Michael


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mountford, Kali


Hurst, Alan
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hutton, John
Mudie, George


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mullin, Chris


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jenkins, Brian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Norris, Dan



Oaten, Mark


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolveh'ton SW)
Organ, Mrs Diana



Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Perham, Ms Linda


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pickthall, Colin


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pike, Peter L


Keetch, Paul
Plaskitt, James


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pollard, Kerry


Kemp, Fraser
Pond, Chris


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen






Powell, Sir Raymond
Stoate, Dr Howard


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Primarolo, Dawn
Stringer, Graham


Prosser, Gwyn
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Purchase, Ken
Stunell, Andrew


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles



Rammell, Bill
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rapson, Syd
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Raynsford, Nick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Tipping, Paddy


Rendel, David
Todd, Mark


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Rogers, Allan
Touhig, Don


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Trickett, Jon


Rooney, Terry
Truswell, Paul


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Roy, Frank
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ruddock, Joan
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Tyler, Paul


Salter, Martin
Tynan, Bill


Sanders, Adrian
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sarwar, Mohammad
Ward, Ms Claire


Savidge Malcolm
Wareing, Robert N



Watts David


Sawford, Phil
Webb, Steve


Sedgemore, Brian
White Brian


Shaw, Jonathan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sheerman, Barry
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Shipley, Ms Debra
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Singh, Marsha
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Skinner, Dennis
Willis, Phil


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Winnick, David


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Wise, Audrey


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Worthington, Tony


Soley, Clive
Wray, James


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Spellar, John
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wyatt, Derek


Starkey, Dr Phyllis



Steinberg, Gerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Stinchcombe, Paul
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Development Policy

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Damian Green: I beg to move,
That this House urges the Government to disown the Crow Report and its recommendation of 1.1 million houses to be built in the South-East; condemns the Government's practice of bulldozing homes and walking away from the regeneration of run-down town and city areas; requests an urgent response to the proposals in the Rogers Report for urban renewal; stresses the connections between planning and transport policies; and calls for a change to planning policy to encourage one Britain and urban renewal instead of the divisive policies the Government is pursuing.

Hon. Members: Where is Archie?

Mr. Green: I should apologise to the many Government Members who are admirers of my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). I advise them all to book early for Environment questions next Tuesday.
We have brought the debate to the House because the Government stand condemned on two counts: first, they have shown themselves to be completely uninterested in protecting the countryside; and, secondly, they have shown themselves to be neglectful of the interests of city centres that need regeneration. The combination of those two failures of Government policy has led to despair in the countryside and anger in the cities.
Let me start with the ignorance and neglect that the Government have shown toward the countryside, which will for ever be symbolised by the now notorious remark made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions:
the green belt is a Labour achievement, and we mean to build on it.
That is perhaps the only example of the right hon. Gentleman speaking with complete clarity and accuracy since he took office. The only charitable course of action in respect of his use of language is to laugh, but there is far more serious hypocrisy afoot. His deputy, the Minister for the Environment, said before the general election:
we will make the next Labour Government the first truly green Government that Britain has ever seen.
That is the standard that the Government set themselves. Let us investigate their performance on the Crow report against that standard.

Mr. Andrew Miller: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman reminded his hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) that, according to the conventions of the House, we would give him an easy ride first time round.
Does the hon. Gentleman consider it appropriate to table a motion with the title "Northern Cities and Southern Green Fields"? Does he realise that there are many acres of beautiful countryside in the north of the country? Does he ever visit the north? Will he dissociate himself from the title?

Mr. Green: If that is the best that the special advisers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the


Regions can come up with as a handout, I shall not take any more interventions. If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to investigate the subject of the debate, he might know that the Crow report is specifically about the south-east of England. It blithely proposes to put 1.1 million extra homes in the south-east.
The report is one of the shoddiest, least-well-argued and anti-environmental documents ever produced by the planning profession. It takes us straight back to the 1960s, when planners looked at the demographic trends, thought of a housing number, added a bit for luck and insisted that those houses be built, whatever the consequences for the environment.
A really green Government who meant to stick to their principles would have thrown the report out at the first opportunity. Regardless of those principles, the report cuts across the Government's declared policy.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative Opposition will move to a policy whereby, instead of housing numbers being imposed on local authorities from above, leaving them no control, local authorities will in future have a much greater say in the housing numbers that they must provide in their areas?

Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is what we have proposed. We want to give more planning power to local people and take away the Government's centralising tendencies.
The Government should have thrown out the Crow report. Instead, they have proceeded to play their usual game of nods, winks, nudges, leaks and half-truths, leaving no one knowing where they stand, and leaving many people angry—not just people in the south-east of England but a much wider coalition, who will never trust the Government again.
Serplan—the south-east regional planning committee—has pointed out a large number of deficiencies in Crow, not least that it brushes aside the problems of congestion and pressure on services. That does not seem to have moved the Government, nor does the Council for the Protection of Rural England's response to Crow. The CPRE said:
The Government should reject these nightmare plans for building in the South East. They spell sprawl and congestion in England's most overcrowded region and continuing urban decay and social exclusion in other parts of the country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Green: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), then I must make some progress.

Ms Claire Ward: The hon. Gentleman is setting out the views of a range of organisations, yet before that he said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should have rejected the Crow report's proposals immediately. Is not the point to listen, consider and consult, and to ensure that such responses are forthcoming so that the Secretary of State is well informed when he finally makes his decision?

Mr. Green: The response to Crow has been universally negative, and I would expect the hon. Lady, whose own

constituency is under threat, to share that view. I shall stop complaining if the Government this evening reject Crow hook, line and sinker, but they have not done so. They have deliberately been sending out leaks, nods and winks for the past six months, without letting us know what they think. That is creating widespread anger across the south-east, not least in my constituency, which is particularly targeted for the bulldozers by Crow.

Mr. John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend recall that practically the first action of the Deputy Prime Minister, without listening to anyone, was to agree to 10,000 houses on the green belt outside the new town of Stevenage? In that, he was supported by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), who is not in her place.

Mr. Green: My right hon. Friend is characteristically correct and points out one of the betrayals of the green fields that the Deputy Prime Minister has committed.

Ms Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Green: Not again; once is enough for the hon. Lady.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Green: I shall make progress. The only support for the Crow report comes from Professor Christine Whitehead, who is an adviser to the Government and who believes that we need 10 new towns the size of Basingstoke in the south-east of England.
Professor Whitehead, with commendable honesty that has so far failed to grip those on the Government Front Bench, said to The Times:
I don't mind covering a bit of the South East in concrete, to be honest.
At least she is honest. By contrast, the Government's response has been to dither and dodge the issue ever since it came up.
Two weeks ago the Government leaked to a Sunday newspaper the prospect of what they call "millennium towns", new settlements of 50,000 people, one of which they wanted to plonk down on the green fields in my constituency. I asked the Department a number of questions to elucidate the truth behind that leak.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), replied that proposals for a new town had been put forward and that the Secretary of State would shortly consult on draft changes to the draft regional planning guidance. We are to be consulted, are we? Do not believe it for a minute.
Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister revealed to a Fabian Society and SERA—Socialist Environmental Resources Association—conference that he has taken the decision already. He claimed that the Government would not be concreting over the south-east. He went on to say:
We will be recognising the needs of continuing economic growth and providing for future prosperity"—
weasel words which show that he believes in a bit of concrete over the south-east, just like Professor Whitehead.
The Deputy Prime Minister went on to say:
We will want to make the best use of major transport modes and utilise transport corridors. This includes ensuring that the new Channel Tunnel Rail Link brings as much benefit to the surrounding areas as possible.
Those are real weasel words. The benefit that he wants to bring is a large pile of concrete all over the green fields of east Kent.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman's party's policy extend to allowing local councils to determine planning applications for out-of-town supermarkets?

Mr. Green: We do believe in greater local powers across the planning system. We are consistent in that. I should be interested to know the Government's view on that.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: rose—

Mr. Green: It is clear that the Deputy Prime Minister is not going to consult. He has already decided. There is further dishonesty. He has clearly decided that part of the Crow report will be implemented, yet his spin to the press yesterday, as quoted in the Evening Standard, was "Prescott shuts door on homes boom".

Dr. Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Green: No doubt the Government wanted to reassure everyone in the south-east, but one has only to read the story to discover that, after all his months of dithering, the Deputy Prime Minister has not rejected Crow. He has looked at the Serplan figure, which is 750,000, and the Crow figure of 1.1 million, and he has split the difference.
The Deputy Prime Minister's figure will still mean that large swathes of the green land that people in England value will be gone. He knows, as do those on the Government Front Bench, that once it has gone, it is gone for ever. He will have written on his political tombstone, "The man who ripped up the green fields of England."

Dr. Whitehead: rose—

Mr. Green: Hon. Members from other regions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) must not remain standing if the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House is clearly not giving way.

Mr. Green: Hon. Members from other regions need not think that this is just a south-eastern problem. There are already murmurings of hundreds of thousands of extra homes needed in the south-west of England.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that before he takes his annual day trip to the countryside tomorrow, where he will lecture people on how they should stop moaning about the lack of rural services, the destruction of British agriculture, the closure of their post offices, and the extra

petrol taxes levied by the Government, and start learning to love him as they have been told, perhaps he should be aware that he will face one more legitimate grievance.
As well as farmers, drivers, shoppers, postal workers and fishermen, the Prime Minister will have environmentalists after him. They will be telling him that life in the countryside is not the idyllic vision painted by the Cabinet Office report that we will see tomorrow, but a struggle against an uncaring and ignorant Government.

Mr. Anthony Steen: My hon. Friend mentioned the south-west. Is he aware that at the Dartington Church of England school in my constituency, the sewer is so small that it cannot cope with the amount of water that goes down it when there is a storm? As a result, the sewage pops up in the basins of the primary school—the sewer is too full because too many homes have been built without the proper infrastructure being in place. Does he agree that we should not build new homes if the infrastructure cannot cope? May I draw to his attention my private Member's Bill to be debated on 24 March, which deals with the matter?

Mr. Green: My hon. Friend gives a vivid example of what happens when building is too much for the infrastructure. We shall take the advert for his private Member's Bill as the commercial break in my speech.
The Deputy Prime Minister has spent the best part of three years fiddling at the edges of the planning system, without making it integrated, joined up, modern or any of the other buzz words that the Government substitute for principles. He said that he would move on from predict and provide for housing plans. Sadly, he has replaced it with dither and destroy. In the countryside, things can only get worse under this Government.
The Government stand condemned as the enemy of the countryside, but that probably does not worry Labour Members. The few Labour Members who were elected in mainly rural seats expect to be here only temporarily and are already planning what to do next. That may apply less strongly to Labour Members who represent inner-city constituencies. They expect to be here for more than another year. It is refreshing to witness the way in which they are beginning to come out of the woodwork and endorse our criticisms of the Government.
This week, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), after courageously and honestly deciding that he could not stomach sitting on the Front Bench any longer, blew the gaffe. In The Guardian on Wednesday, he criticised the Government for their "wholly London perspective", which, he is reported as saying, leads to
'very often a lack of understanding' of issues in Merseyside and the regions.
Intriguingly, the article continues:
New Labour had become 'a pejorative term in many people's eyes', which he no longer used.
The Prime Minister may believe that the north-south divide does not exist, but his candid friends in the north clearly do not believe him.
The hon. Member for Walton is not alone. When the Prime Minister commissioned the famous Cabinet Office report in a desperate attempt to show that he was not letting down the inner cities, Mr. Bill Midgley, president of the north-east chamber of commerce, dismissed it as


"whitewash". He said that Ministers were highly selective within regions, and that anyone could play that game. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) suggested that the Prime Minister should put up or shut up on the issue. Many of us heartily endorse that sentiment.
The Government fail on two counts: they are unwilling to protect the landscape in relatively prosperous areas and unwilling to take action to regenerate our cities—in the south or the north.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Last year, I read on page 56 of my local newspaper that the hon. Gentleman had visited my constituency. As he drove north of Lowestoft, did he notice a large, out-of-town superstore? Did he realise that the local council had unanimously rejected the application for it when the Conservative party was in government? Does he know that the previous Government overruled the local council to grant permission for building an Asda superstore? How does he square that with his comments about granting power to local councils?

Mr. Green: I feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman because he had a prepared intervention for someone other than me. Unfortunately, he is insufficiently flexible to devise an intervention on his own.
I shall present some practical suggestions, which we have made public. The Government can adopt them if they wish; they would help cities in the north and in the south.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: There is an acid test in the life of every Government and, as my hon. Friend considers the north-south divide, we recall the Prime Minister's rhetoric. The acid test comes this week, when we await the decision on whether the Synchrotron award will be given to Oxfordshire or Cheshire. If it is awarded outside the north-west, which has a zone of natural advantage, we shall have proof that the Prime Minister is not sincere about wanting to support the north-west.

Mr. Green: My hon. Friend has been fighting hard for the interests of his constituents. He has done that alongside many trade unionists whom he met today. I hope that the Government will take note of that.
The Government should set higher brownfield targets; they should be increased to two thirds of all new housing. The Government should do more to release redundant land and buildings from the public sector to the private sector for redevelopment. Run-down housing stock should be transferred from the public to the private sector for redevelopment. The Government could give homesteading grants to provide financial incentives for individuals and co-operatives to transform run-down, dilapidated council houses and flats. The Government could do more to restore contaminated land. They could set tougher penalties for anti-social activity, which makes life difficult in some of the deprived estates in our cities.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Green: I shall not give way again. Most important, the Government should revise planning guidance so that local people can have more control over the planning

system. Instead of Ministers making decisions in Whitehall, councils should be given more discretion to determine the amount of greenfield development that they want. We should make it easier for councils to develop in the inner cities, where regeneration is possible, and more difficult for development to occur on green fields.
We have proposed a raft of policies, which are available for the Government to steal, if they wish. If they believe that that is beneath their dignity, perhaps they would like to look to their own side. Last summer, the Labour peer Lord Rogers produced an interesting and full report, which provided many options for regenerating our cities. At the time, the Deputy Prime Minister mumbled that it was all jolly interesting and that the Government would consider it carefully. Since then, there has been a deafening silence, which means that the Department is paralysed at the prospect of making a decision.
Our cities are supposed to be an urgent problem for the Government and the Deputy Prime Minister. It is so urgent that they have put the Rogers report on a shelf in the hope that we shall forget it. I assure the Minister that we will not. The Minister could bring a constructive element to the debate if he gave a firm date for the publication of an urban White Paper, which gave the Government's full reaction to the Rogers report. If he cannot do that, the House must draw its own conclusions.
It is not only cities that feel the Government's slowness in producing their thoughts. I commend the Government for the consistency in their attitude to the rural White Paper. Since they told us that they would produce a rural White Paper, they claim that it will be published in the next season of the year, or the next season but one. Last summer, they claimed that it would be published in the late autumn; in the early autumn, it was scheduled for the new year; before Christmas, publication was set for the spring; last month it was set for the summer. I heard recently that it will not be published until this autumn. At such a rate of progress the Government will be saved from their indecision. The collapse of large parts of agriculture and the over-development of many green fields will mean that no rural life will remain about which to produce a rural White Paper. The rural White Paper is another example of dither and destroy.
Conservative Members, who care about protecting the countryside and regenerating cities, are frustrated because we are asking the Government to do something that is popular and right. However, they seem determined to wait for years before plunging in the wrong direction. They must have noticed that their attitude creates anger in communities across the country, in all areas with all sorts of social conditions.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that the Government are failing the countryside and the cities and creating a divided society. With every month that passes, it is increasingly obvious that the Government have no understanding of, no interest in and no solutions to those serious problems.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the Government's commitment to create high-quality, desirable, safe places to live without eating up the countryside; supports the Government's policies on protecting the Green Belt


and believes the Government's inclusive and strategic approach to planning, housing, transport, countryside protection, welfare and economic policies will achieve more sustainable and equitable patterns of both urban and rural development; recognises that this Government is planning for economic success and that there is an opportunity to use growth to create better and more sustainable communities and improve the quality of life; welcomes the Government's move away from the previous 'predict and provide' approach to housing provision and the introduction of a 'plan, monitor and manage' policy; supports the Government's target of building 60 per cent. of all new housing on previously developed land; and welcomes the Government's determination to ensure that the whole country shares in the benefits of economic recovery.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on his new appointment to the Opposition Front Bench. That said, the hon. Gentleman may feel a little apprehensive knowing that he is the fourth shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in less than three years.
May I also say how disappointed I am that the hon. Gentleman has declined to open tonight's debate, despite the trail on the "Today" programme, which indicated that this was to be his great opening event? In case it is suggested that that was, perhaps, due to the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister is not opening the debate, let me say that it was made clear last week that I would be doing so. It was also made clear that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) would be opening for the Opposition. Clearly, he is not available and it is interesting that his successor has not chosen to open the debate.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is too modest. Perhaps he is aware that he is inadequately briefed on a difficult subject; or perhaps he has been too busy with his business interests. No doubt the Leader of the Opposition—who I understand worked closely with him when they were at McKinsey's—was well aware of the extensive business interests of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells when he made the appointment, not least his association with Asda and the US giant Wal-Mart.
I hear that the hon. Gentleman announced this afternoon that he is giving up his directorship and consultancy post with Asda. I welcome that, although I question whether it is right that he should retain a major shareholding in Wal-Mart which, as the House knows, has substantial interests in the retail sector and planning issues, which are highly relevant to the subject of this debate.

Mr. Archie Norman: I assume that the Minister will shortly come to the substance of the debate and move on from these dreary and pathetic issues. Is he aware that the major shareholding to which he referred is 0 per cent?

Mr. Raynsford: I am pleased to hear that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us about his shareholding—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During my time in the House, if Ministers, or anyone else, say something that is denied, they usually substantiate it or apologise and withdraw. The Minister should do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for the Minister.

Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) had not leapt up intemperately,

I was about to say that I was pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells had done so. I was acting on the basis of the "Register of Members' Interests", which was prepared on 1 December 1999 and which declared under "Registrable shareholdings" a holding by the hon. Gentleman in Wal-Mart. If the hon. Gentleman has disposed of his shares since then, I am pleased to hear it, but I hope that he will accept that I spoke in good faith on the basis of the latest available information in that register.
The House should pay attention to such matters. I think that we would also welcome an indication of the hon Gentleman's intentions for his other directorships—in companies such as French plc, Maybeat Ltd., Knutsford, and the wonderfully named Nocktwice. This is an important issue, which is not only of concern to the House. As The Times said today, the hon. Gentleman's business connections would be
the voice of vested interest, whether the issue was planning laws or car parking charges".

Mr. Baldry: We are all genuinely pleased to see the Minister back in much better health. However, my constituents will not understand this knockabout. Concerns on the Crow report are such that parish churches in certain villages are the only buildings that are large enough to hold the public meetings to complain about the report—such a thing has not happened for a long time. As part of the consultation process under the draft regional planning guidance, I invite the Minister to visit Oxfordshire to hear at first hand the concerns of the people who live there about the impact of the new planning guidance on our county.

Mr. Raynsford: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. As he will know, we are considering carefully the recommendations of both the Serplan report and the Crow panel and we will make our decisions clear in the near future. Until we do so, it is not appropriate for us to participate in any public debate. However, we will be happy to debate the issue fully subsequently. Also, it is a matter of concern in the House and throughout the country that our decisions on matters as important as this should be taken impartially and solely from the point of view of the public interest. There should be no question of any other interest influencing our decisions.
I gather that, when the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells was at Asda, he used to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I trust that the Minister will agree that it is time to move on. He is supposed to be speaking to the amendment and I trust that he will do just that.

Mr. Raynsford: I will come immediately to the point in hand. I was simply observing the absence of the shadow Secretary of State from the Dispatch Box when the Conservative party announced on the "Today" programme this morning that this would be his first test—a test that he has spectacularly failed.
Whoever dreamt up the title of tonight's debate, "The Two Britains", could have done with some help. Presumably, the right hon. Member for Wokingham decided to use this echo of Disraeli. I will miss him at the Dispatch Box, but I suppose that it is not surprising that,


unsure of his future in a turbulent and demoralised Conservative Party, the right hon. Gentleman should be desperately hankering after past glories in turning to Disraeli for inspiration. Whoever chose the title, he clearly did not spend much time reading Disraeli. Had he done so, he could hardly have failed to recognise Disraeli's powerful message and how different that was from the simplistic, badly researched and unconvincing case put across by the official Opposition this evening—a pale sad shadow of the Conservative party, which was a party of government.
The two nations of which Disraeli spoke:
between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy, who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts and feelings as if they were dwellers in different zones or inhabitants of different planets, who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by different food and ordered by different manners",
were not dwellers in different regions—north and south. They lived in close proximity to each other in almost every corner of Victorian Britain. They were, of course, the rich and the poor. The shocking division between rich and poor that Disraeli chronicled remains all too visible.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: It sounds as though the Minister is describing the difference between old and new Labour.

Mr. Raynsford: I was describing the difference between the glorious days of the Conservative party in the time of Disraeli and its sad, pale shadow today.
That was the division that Disraeli described. It was not between north and south, but between rich and poor. Those divisions got much wider under the 18 years of Conservative Government, despite their—[Interruption.] Let us look at the previous Government's record on employment region by region between 1979 and 1995. Employment in the north was down 10.6 per cent.; in the north-west, 11.4 per cent.; in Yorkshire and Humberside, 5.8 per cent.; in London, 11 per cent.; and, in the west midlands, 9.7 per cent.
There is more. Under the Tories, the top 10th of the population got almost two thirds better off, while the bottom 10th became 17 per cent. worse off. In 1994, the gap between the highest and lowest paid worker was higher than at any time since records began in 1886, just five years after Disraeli's death. That was the Conservative Government's record on dividing the nation, and that is the legacy which the Government have inherited.

Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raynsford: No, I have already given way once to the hon. Gentleman.
The challenge that the Government have willingly taken up is how to reduce the gap between the haves and the have nots—the inequalities that scar our society—and how to tackle the evils of social exclusion, unemployment, homelessness and despair, to which all too many of our fellow citizens were condemned by the previous Conservative Government's policies. This Government's one-nation policies are addressing those problems, which exist all over Britain.
Poor economic and social conditions are not confined to any one part of Britain. Of the 150 most deprived wards in the country, 42 are in London and the south-east,

and 66 are in the south, and 22 of London's 33 districts feature in the top 100 deprived areas. Unemployment in London is second only to that in the north-east.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that what was remarkable about the speech the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was that, while the debate is notionally about not simply the south and the green belt, but about the north, there was almost no reference to that, and certainly no analysis? My hon. Friend's present point is the most telling of all. Even within the south, there are enormous pockets of poverty, of which the hon. Gentleman seems blissfully, and, in his case, I assume, happily, ignorant.

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. The absence of any significant reference to the problems of poverty throughout Britain and particularly in the north by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was something which all hon. Members will have noted.

Mr. Blizzard: Representing Britain's most easterly constituency, I find that debates about the north and the south, and speeches such as that of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), show a neglect of the east, which is what we suffered for 18 years. This Government's policy of tackling deprivation, poverty and unemployment, wherever it is, is the right way forward, and that is certainly appreciated by my constituents.

Mr. Raynsford: I well recall a visit that I made to my hon. Friend's constituency to see the real problems of deprivation in Lowestoft and areas of the eastern region, and he is right to highlight the fact that problems of poverty and deprivation exist throughout Britain and are not confined to any one region.
Regional averages mask enormous variations in social and economic conditions. For example, in Yorkshire and Humberside, GDP per head in 1996 ranged from 30 per cent. above the national average in York to 35 per cent. below in Barnsley and Doncaster. In the south-east, GDP in Berkshire was 38 per cent. above the national average, while in East Sussex it was 26 per cent. below. Those are real variations within existing regions, north and south.
Likewise, the media have greatly exaggerated the idea of a north-south shift in the population. Although England's three northern regions lose people each year to out-migration, for every 100 people that move away, at least 95 people move in. The total number of people lost by net migration from those three regions is just 10,000 each year, and that is largely offset by natural growth in the population. Most importantly for this debate, most of that regional out-migration is to neighbouring regions. Anyone who looks at the hard data will see that few people make the much-hyped north-south leap of which the Tories try to make such capital.
The Opposition clearly did not bother to look up their facts before making suppositions about trends that do not exist. They need to look at what is happening within each region. Households tend to move out of our cities—the six metropolitan counties and Greater London lose more than 90,000 people each year through net migration to the less urban areas surrounding them.
If the Opposition look only at the regional averages, they will only ever learn part of the story. All regions contain pockets of deprivation and prosperity, areas of


population decline and growth. We recognise the need to have in place the right conditions for growth throughout the country, and policies to tackle specific problems of deprivation and decline wherever they occur.
How should we do that? As we never tire of reminding the Opposition, we have set up regional development agencies to target areas of under-performance and generate sustainable and more balanced economic growth in their regions. For the first time, regional strategies set out how less prosperous areas in each of our regions can gain a share in, and contribute to, Britain's increasing prosperity.
Just as the regional development agencies are beginning to make a real impact, the Tories, with their uncanny knack of doing the wrong thing at the wrong time, are calling for their abolition. It would be a matter of deep regret if anyone took them seriously, and if it were not so maladroit, that the Opposition now want to abolish the RDAs—although I gather not those in Scotland and Wales—the regional planning structures and the regional chambers, the new deal, the minimum wage and the working families tax credit. That is the policy of despair, not the politics of a serious party that might aspire to Government.

Mr. David Prior: Can the hon. Gentleman name one thing that the East of England development agency has done to alleviate poverty in East Anglia?

Mr. Raynsford: The East of England development agency is already working in a number of different ways. It has submitted a detailed strategy for activity within the area. Its representatives have met the Minister for Local Government and the Regions to outline what will be done in the regions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) so rightly pointed out, the Government are tackling the problems that were neglected by the previous Government.

Mr. Blizzard: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Raynsford: No, I have given way once and I must make progress.
Housing is one fundamental element in people's living standards. Unlike Conservative Members, the Government are committed to offering everyone the opportunity of a decent home. Over the life of this Parliament, we are making available an additional £5 billion for investment in housing in England. Resources for housing investment by local authorities from April next year have been increased by 48 per cent. over the previous year, the largest increase in the housing investment programme that has ever been made, following long years of cuts under the Conservative Government. That investment is helping to tackle the serious backlog of poor condition council housing, to build new affordable homes in areas of shortage and to tackle the problem of low demand which was ignored throughout the Tory years.

Mr. Graham Brady: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the rationale for cutting the budget of the Housing Corporation in the north-west by nearly 20 per cent. this year?

Mr. Raynsford: The Housing Corporation's budget has not been cut by 20 per cent., it has increased this year.

The Housing Corporation's regional allocation, like that given to local authorities, is determined by formulae. In the case of the Housing Corporation, that is the housing needs index, and, in the case of the local authorities, a slightly different one called the general needs index. Because the HNI was based on the 1996 house condition survey, which showed significant changes from the previous data, the improvement in housing conditions in the north-west resulted in a lesser allocation. Overall, when one considers the allocations to the local authorities and housing associations combined, the north-west region has some £70 million of additional housing investment this year.

Mr. Gummer: Under which Government did that improvement in housing in the north-west take place? Was it under the same Government whom the hon. Gentleman was attacking for not doing anything about housing?

Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to pay tribute to the good work of all the local authorities and housing associations in the north-west, many of which I know well, which successfully secured significant improvements in their area during those years.
Our forthcoming housing Green Paper will set out a series of radical new proposals for the further modernisation of housing policy and lay the foundations for ending the appalling legacy of homelessness, housing deprivation and social divisiveness that we inherited in 1997.

Mr. Steen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will give way, but I should like to make some progress first.
Crucial to building a successful and united country is our policy of urban renaissance. The flight from the cities, which was such a characteristic of the Tory years, must be reversed. The notion that urban living is second best needs to be overturned. We want to make our towns and cities places in which people choose to live and lift the threat of unnecessary development from the countryside.
People also want the tide to turn on dreary and soulless house building. No one wants more of the indifferent collections of little boxes that were allowed to spread across our countryside like a rash. Unfortunately, many of those developments, which I regret were a characteristic of development patterns under the previous Government, are still in the pipeline, particularly in the south-east. That must change and we have made it clear that it will.
The creation of better-designed places where people want to live will be a strong message in our new planning policy guidance for housing—PPG3—which we shall publish soon. We shall make it clear that planning authorities should promote developments that bring together environmental, transport and planning best practice to create places that have their own distinct identity and are in harmony with the local environment. New development should help to create safe, attractive places of a quality that will endure.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Does my hon. Friend agree that my constituency is an


excellent example of precisely the good planning that he has described? Was it not unfortunate that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who is on record as being extremely rude about my constituency, did not see fit to give way to allow him to put that right on the record?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the considerable qualities of Milton Keynes. There are many good things in her area and she is right to condemn unthinking, ill-informed attacks by people who probably have little or no practical knowledge of that part of the country.
We shall make it clear in our new guidance that new developments should help to make places safe and attractive and should be built to design standards that will endure. We shall not beat about the bush. When applying for planning permission, housebuilders will have to show how they have taken the need for good design into account. Planning authorities will be expected to reject poor design, particularly when their decisions are supported by clear planning policies and design guidance. We shall support them on appeal.

Mr. Steen: The Minister talks about good design, which is important, but does he agree that it is equally important to have sewers and schools in place when new homes are built? There must be enough facilities so that people already living in an area are not prejudiced. How will PPG3 ensure that people who already live in the countryside do not have their lives ruined because there is insufficient infrastructure for new homes?

Mr. Raynsford: I say to the hon. Gentleman, who always enlivens our proceedings, that design is more than aesthetics; it is about creating the correct environment and ensuring that places are safe for people to lead pleasant lives without fear of the undesirable consequences that he described.
The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee recently produced a welcome report on planning for housing and I say to the Chairman and its members that I shall respond to the report and that PPG3 will be published very shortly. The Committee will know that planning guidance has quasi-legal status and takes time to prepare. An enormous number of responses have been made to the consultation, including one from the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), and we are taking them seriously. The document is a key plank in countering the irresponsible development policies that were pursued for more than a decade in the early years of the previous Administration and which threatened the green belt and gobbled up the countryside.
We take no lessons from the Opposition. On the profligate use of greenfield sites, hon. Members should look at what they did on out-of-town shopping. During their 18 years in office, nearly 13 million sq m of out-of-town shopping floor space was developed in shopping centres, retail parks and superstores. Superstores alone added 5 million sq m and half all out-of-town shopping—much of it in the south-east—was approved and built under the previous Administration in seven ruinous years from 1986–92.
The disastrous consequences have been recognised and policies changed. To his credit, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—I am delighted that he

is present—began that process, and we have tightened further the restrictions on inappropriate out-of-town developments with the clear support of the Select Committee's recent report. In the same way that the tide has been turned against a proliferation of out-of-town shopping centres that damage our town centres, so, too, the tide is turning in favour of housing development in our towns and on brownfield sites. We are promoting a sequential approach to delivering land for new homes, which will prioritise the re-use of brownfield sites.

Mr. Peter Lilley: May we take it that the Government prefer building on brownfield sites and that they will rescind the permission to build 10,000 houses on the green belt in my constituency? That is the largest approval ever given for housebuilding on the green belt.

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman knows from previous debates in the House that the decision to proceed with that designation was taken by the local authority, quite properly, and it decided to proceed because of a perception—for which there is considerable support from people who have looked at the matter carefully, including planning professionals—that it is better to concentrate development in an area close to transport linkages and other facilities rather than allow a proliferation of development throughout the wider surrounding rural area. I know that that is a difficult issue and that there are different points of view, but he knows only too well that the decision was properly taken by the local authority. It would be quite improper for the Government to intervene belatedly in the way that he suggests.

Ms Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that developments such as the west of Stevenage development are important to achieving a balance? Although the majority of houses should be built on urban redeveloped land, some are necessary in areas where a new town can be constructed. If it were not for the west of Stevenage development, areas of Stevenage and Watford would experience more building and the amenities available to the people who already live in the town centres would be decreased. They have little green space around them so they want to protect some of it.

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend rightly articulates the concerns of many people in urban areas who do not want urban green spaces to be built on. We support that. Our policy priority is to secure development, wherever possible, on brownfield sites. When that is not possible—we recognise that it is not always—it is essential that sustainability principles apply. I described them in response to the question posed by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).

Mr. Blizzard: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Raynsford: Once more, but then I must make progress because this is a brief debate. I have given way to my hon. Friend already.

Mr. Blizzard: Before my hon. Friend moves on from brownfield sites, may I draw his attention to a large £3 million redevelopment that is under way on a derelict


brownfield site in Lowestoft? It was funded by the East of England development agency, and that may be of interest to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior).

Mr. Raynsford: I thought that my hon. Friend was about to come in with a useful and apposite reference that responded well to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior).
As I have made clear, we are also committed to a 60 per cent. target for recycling land. We believe that that is tough, but achievable, and Lord Rogers' urban task force agrees. That is not only a question of maximising the use of recycled land. We must end the profligate waste of land through the type of low-density greenfield development that characterised the Tory years. The facts speak for themselves: between 1989 and 1997, 58 per cent. of all new housing developments in the south-east were at densities of less than 20 houses per hectare. That was the previous Government's legacy, and it has to change. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, "We've got to stop wasting land." We want local authorities to look critically at the standards that they apply to new development.

Mr. Andrew Reed: On wasting existing brownfield sites, will my hon. Friend ensure that local authorities have powers to act when private landlords price town centre sites unreasonably and make sure that developers are not able to use them to enhance housing and urban regeneration? There are real difficulties as many such sites are derelict. Will he consider bringing them back into use?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the difficulty of land assembly in many urban areas. As he will probably know, we have commissioned a detailed study of compulsory purchase practice and are looking at ways of improving the procedures to ensure that it is possible for land assembly to take place while the interests of all parties are respected. A delicate balance has to be achieved, but we are seeking a way forward.
Raising densities does not represent either a pipe dream or a return to the high-rise developments of the 1960s and 1970s. I want better-quality housing design that includes modern variations on popular traditional-style layouts to improve the quality of life in our towns and cities and reduce development in the countryside. It can be done, and it has been done, as developments such as Poundbury in Dorset and Coin street in London have clearly demonstrated. We can achieve better-quality housing and use less land with a popular mix of housing. Even on suburban sites, net development densities of about 50 dwellings per hectare can be achieved with a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached houses with gardens. Few would quibble with the Government's wish to see quality places that people will cherish.
We will soon announce the conclusions that we shall reach on regional planning guidance for the south-east and eastern regions. As all Members know, we cannot and will not pre-empt that announcement. Let me make this crystal clear, however: our response, and our approach to the future development needs of both regions—and, indeed, others—will be firmly based on the principles that

I have set out today, and our commitment both to encouraging an urban renaissance and to the protection of our countryside.
In contrast to the previous Government, who presided over a profligate and unsustainable development bonanza that gobbled up millions of hectares of greenfield land, the present Government have developed what is probably the most co-ordinated, thoughtful and realistic approach to planning and regeneration that we have seen for many decades. A number of the new policies are already in place; others will follow in the near future. They will, of course, take a little time to work—there is a lot of damage to make good—but what I have described is a joined-up, long-term programme, with clear objectives in mind and with huge benefits for all our country, urban and rural, north and south. What a contrast that is with the piecemeal, knee-jerk attempt by a non-credible Opposition to grab headlines by distorting a few selectively chosen statistics.
We care about the countryside. We care about our towns, and we care about our cities. We care about all our regions. We are the party of one nation—one Britain. I commend the amendment warmly to the House.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I am sure that all hon. Members share my disappointment that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was not here to open the debate. I, for one, would have liked to ask him some questions about the policies that he has expounded in recent months—not least how he squares cutting bureaucracy for developers with giving more power to local people. I wonder whether that policy will continue.
Like many other Members, I am also disappointed that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) is not at the Dispatch Box, but I am sure that everyone awaits next Tuesday's Environment questions with great interest.
This afternoon, answering my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Prime Minister had a great opportunity to start the process of showing the Government's commitment. He could have said that the Government were going to come clean about whether they would provide match funding for areas that have been granted objective 1 status in Wales, the south-west, Merseyside and Sheffield. If he had said that the Government now had every intention of honouring those commitments, the message would have gone out to those areas, loud and clear, that the Government were on the ball and would deliver. I am sure that people living there are greatly disappointed that the opportunity was lost.
I spent 30 years in local government, during which time I chaired a local planning authority in what was probably the country's most densely populated city, and led the largest local authority in the country, with a great responsibility for a sizeable chunk of the south-east. I had expected to discover what the Tories had to say. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) did not allow me to intervene; had he done so, I would have asked what responsibility he felt he and his colleagues had for what had happened between 1979 and 1997. As planning chairman and as leader of a local authority,


I suffered weekly from the overturning of planning decisions and from the pressure that is placed on local authorities to do more—and from not being able to receive a straight answer, even when Ministers were confronted by delegations of members and the public.
I was interested to read the document "Common Sense Revolution in Regeneration", and to note the sudden conversion experienced by the Tories who wrote it. They speak of restoring contaminated land. Where were they in the 1980s and 1990s, when authorities such as mine and many others throughout the country begged for resources to free up brownfield sites and enable them to be developed? The price for the failure to do that was the taking of hundreds, if not thousands, of the green acres that the Tories now long to protect. They did nothing; and there is no disclaimer in the document. There is not even a footnote saying, "Whatever you do, be careful: there is a denial at the back that you can use in case of emergency." Moreover, we heard nothing from the Tories today about their current position.
In a section entitled "Revised Planning Guidance", the Tories say:
We will streamline the planning process in rundown areas and make brownfield development easier.
Why now?

Mr. Norman: What is your policy?

Mr. Hancock: Do not worry; we shall come to that. You had years in power, and we are now suffering the results. It is a bit rich for you to come here—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember to use the correct parliamentary language.

Mr. Hancock: It is a bit rich of Her Majesty's Opposition to present a motion that does little other than cry crocodile tears. It would have been nice if someone had owned up to the part that the Conservative party played in creating the present mess.
I entirely agree with the Minister about the difficulty of judging the north-south divide, but it is certainly not right for Members to talk down our northern cities. We need only look at the success stories in Newcastle, Manchester and Leeds, and the huge advances that have been made in Liverpool and Sheffield, in a very short time, under Liberal Democrat control. The figures speak for themselves.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, following the Rogers report, the Labour Government's policy is already being enacted in Liverpool? The regeneration company Liverpool Vision—in which the regional development agency works with the local authority and the private sector—has already begun its work. Perhaps he will thank the Government for giving Liverpool city council additional financial support, thus enabling the Liberal Democrats to freeze the council tax. Will he urge them to do the same next year, as the Government have given them yet more funding?

Mr. Hancock: No doubt everyone can produce similar stories from that area. The hon. Member for Liverpool,

Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is a classic example in this regard. He has spoken of the needs of his community. Just over the edge of his constituency, the Kensington community has been given new deal status: it will receive £50 million of investment over the next 10 years. A stone's throw away, a similar community consisting of great people struggling with similar problems will receive nothing.
The hon. Member for Walton said to the House, to the Government—I hope—and certainly to his constituents that areas should not continue to be run down while waiting for the result of pilot schemes in other areas. That must be what was behind his leaving the Government so dramatically: he must have seen the dissatisfaction that his constituents saw daily a stone's throw from where they lived. It is not good enough to try to massage the truth.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) was right to mention Liverpool, but since the Liberal Democrats have been in control there has been record investment of £1 billion in the city. Liverpool has been voted the top United Kingdom day visitor destination. Office developments in Princess dock are going ahead without gap funding, for the first time; and 4,500 homes have been transferred from council control to new social landlords, thus unlocking much-needed capital to improve houses. The story goes on—and that came about because a Liberal Democrat-controlled council had the strength, and the commitment to the city, to bring it about.
The same message is beginning to emerge in Sheffield. It is early days, but already a real change is coming over the city. I could list a great many incentives that are already beginning to bring it into the fold. It is not good enough that—

Dr. Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman recall a development between his constituency and mine, which is the largest out-of-town development along the M27? Does he recall also the party that was in control of the council that gave permission for that development, and the consequences that ensued?

Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is right. I intended to give credit to him for his achievements as leader of Southampton city council. We represent similar cities. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) is in his place, and he also can bear witness. Mistakes have been made by local authorities. However, the local authority to which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) referred was squeezed into a difficult corner. We must try to arrive at policies that allow a reasonable balance. The development could have taken place in the Southampton docks, for example, if Southampton had been open-minded enough to attract it on to a brownfield site. However, millions of pounds would have been needed to clean up the site and make the docks ready for the development. The money was not available because the Tory Government would not provide it. As a result, the development went elsewhere and put pressure on the green belt, and so the story continues.
Portsmouth is a densely populated island. However, as part of its commitment, it is taking another 5,000 housing units. Portsmouth needs new houses like a hole in the head, but it is prepared to do something. As I am sure Ministers and others would say, people living in urban


areas do not want to see rural communities and the green belt that surrounds our cities built upon all over the place. However, there is a price to pay for urban areas such as Portsmouth, Southampton and Brighton playing their part in the south-east.
The figures are hopelessly wrong. They take no account of the fact that in Portsmouth, for example, there are probably nearly 2,000 empty properties. There are probably 10,000 properties that are under-occupied. Many of them are council-owned properties.

Mr. David Drew: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the need to protect the countryside. Does he agree that it is fundamental that we allow some development in rural areas? Through village appraisals and blueprints, local communities often say that they want some housing or economic development because they will suffer just as much as urban areas unless they get it.

Mr. Hancock: Absolutely. I have spoken at numerous village meetings where the village community—not the people who came in for second homes and picturesque thatched cottages—has said that. What about the youngsters, who were born and grew up in the village and who want to continue to live there? Where do they go in the New Forest? Where can they find housing? Do they have to go to Southampton or Bournemouth to live in multi-occupation housing? Do they have to go to Basingstoke? It is the same throughout the south-east. There are obvious needs in the rural community and, once again, a balance must be found.
I hope that the Minister who replies will say that greater help will be given to solve the problem of rundown urban areas, wherever they are. The general improvement areas and housing action areas of the late 1960s and early 1970s have done their job. The 25-year extra life that a general improvement area was supposed to give to an old property has now come to an end in most instances, and most of the properties concerned are more than 100 years old. They now need further refurbishment. We need a return to grants to improve them. Local authorities need help to be able to offer proper and viable alternatives to the elderly who under-occupy. There are some ludicrous examples where one person is occupying a three-bedroom council house with a garden at the front and at the back. At the same time, there are 4,500 and sometimes nearly 5,000 families waiting to be rehoused in many cities. In some instances the figures may be even higher. We need to arrive at policies that offer solutions that do not involve building new housing. In other words, we do not have to build new houses.
A number of things could and should have been done between 1979 and 1997. We know that no one in this place will own up for what did not happen. The Minister rightly applauded the achievements of the last Secretary of State in the Conservative Government with responsibilities in this area, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who tried to halt the development of out-of-town shopping. Unfortunately that finger appeared in the dyke a little too late in the day when most of the damage had been done. Most of the stores have been built, with their acres of car parks. That cannot be reversed.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): My hon. Friend is right when he says that the then Secretary of

State's intervention came late in the day. It is a fact that the sword of Damocles still hangs over some communities. There is a proposed supermarket site outside Frome. Permission for the development was given in the dying days of the Conservative Government, overriding the local authority's decision. We still do not know whether that development will take place. If it does, it will be an Asda.

Mr. Hancock: Once again my hon. Friend has made his point. He has given another example of how the innocence of the countryside will be disturbed for the want of money. When the Conservatives were in Government they created a developers' paradise. Land banks were established in most of the counties of the south-east and the area surrounding the M25 corridor, and many of them still exist.
I was slightly disturbed by the Minister's answer to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), when he said that building up to 10,000 units was what developers might have wanted. Some of the developers who bought land banks in Hampshire, West Sussex and probably in Kent and East Sussex wanted to be involved in that very sort of development. They want to create Micheldevers outside Winchester. However, that is the very thing that most people in the south-east find impossible to handle. I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government's position. I understand that there are exceptions but I would not like developers once again to misinterpret the Minister's response as suggesting that such development will be an acceptable norm in future. If that is the correct interpretation, once again we shall have a Government whose record on development will be tarnished by the time that they leave office.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, asked about the Liberal Democrats' plan. We have a plan. Unlike Baldrick's, it is not a cunning plan. Indeed, it is a straightforward, open plan.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: A short plan?

Mr. Hancock: It is not a short plan. I do not want to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. It is a straightforward plan that could be adopted by the House and the Government very quickly.
We could establish a greenfield development tax to encourage more efficient use of brownfield land and existing properties. We cannot proceed in any other way. There is not a cat-in-hell's chance of achieving the Government's targets otherwise. We would set up regionality to reflect the relative scarcity of greenfield land in each region and regionalise priorities within them. With the vagueness of the present system, a local authority will turn down permission and the Government will grant it, and that will continue.
We would devolve regional responsibility for housing to regions. We would ensure that regions had planning conferences and housing conferences that led to planned strategies. As for Portsmouth, I hope that the region would not be the south-east as a whole but a smaller one. We would simplify regeneration funds into one regeneration fund instead of the numerous sources that now exist.
We would free local government to be more innovative by allowing it greater freedom to borrow and to introduce local income tax—another tax, but it would specifically


benefit people in that area. People in many parts of the country are disappointed at the way in which their tax is spent. A regional local income tax that targeted issues where people live would be far better received than some of the tax rises that they have had to pay since 1 April.
We would give people better control of local politicians via proportional representation and referendums, allowing people to have more say and to reflect more on what was happening. We would give special encouragement to local government development in areas where it has been lagging, such as the north-east and elsewhere.
We would do something about unemployment. The Minister has quoted regional figures. I read with interest the latest published figures on unemployment: it has come down to a record low of just over 1 million; about 1,070,000 are claiming benefit. However, 1.7 million people are registered unemployed, but not claiming benefit. Therefore, nearly 3 million people are still registered unemployed. Whatever the reason, a significant number of people are still registered unemployed. Members may frown at that. The Government supplied those figures. For the first time, they were published on the same day. It was interesting to draw a comparison.
In opposition, the Labour party accused the Tory Government of massaging the unemployment figures. The figures that I have just exposed show that the massaging continues. We ignore them at our peril. We still have major problems of unemployment. We have to give help to regions and to large cities where unemployment still figures high on the agenda of the poor in our community.
I hope that, when Members vote tonight, they will think seriously. I would have loved it if the Government had made another mistake and hon. Members were able to vote on our amendment. I am sure that many Labour Members would have found it hard not to support it.
The Conservative motion starts to redress the situation. It fires a great warning shot. I hope that the Government will take it seriously. However, when people reflect on the debate, most of them will think that it was more about educating Archie than bringing to the attention of the nation the Tories' mistakes while in government, and the way in which they allowed developers to rape the countryside.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I remind the House that many Members wish to speak, so shorter speeches will be appreciated?

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I am also disappointed that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) did not speak, but for the reason that it would have been impossible for him to make a worse speech, at least on the north of England and its cities, than the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), to whom I pay the following compliment. I will ensure that his speech is read widely in my constituency because it will show the absolute contempt that the one-region Tory party has for the north of England.
Rightly, there is still anger in my constituency towards the people who have failed to apologise for the damage that they caused constituencies and cities such as mine

and those of many other Labour Members. The Tory party will regret that, not so much at council elections, but at constituency elections, when the party—which does not exist in the city of Manchester—will cease to be relevant to ordinary people's needs.

Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lloyd: I will, provided that the hon. Gentleman promises to be brief.

Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman would do himself more credit and do more justice to his argument if he gave credit where it is due: to the redevelopment in the centre of Manchester and in Salford Quays, which was achieved under a Conservative Government. Much was done in Manchester under the last Conservative Government. He should admit it.

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the hon. Gentleman was away from Manchester for some time during that era. The shame is that he does not come round with me. I invite the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells to do so. If he wants to know what really happens in a northern city, he should come with me to my constituency and see, for example, east Manchester, which the present Government are doing something about. House prices in the private sector have tumbled there. My constituents come to me because they have paid perhaps £28,000 or £30,000. I accept that that is not a lot by the standards of the millionaires on the Conservative Benches, but it is a lot for working people in the north of England. They have seen house prices plummet to £4,000, £3,000 or, effectively, nothing.
The combination of unemployment and poverty hits people's health, so that people die younger in my constituency—a result of the previous Government's policies. In parts of my constituency, it will take a generation for us to get rid of the legacy of crime. On top of that, people's life chances were blighted by the previous Government. Not once have we heard an apology from Conservative Members, but it is about time that they accepted the blame that attaches to them because of the previous Government—and that attaches to them even now when they fail to understand the real problems, and the real scale of the problems, in constituencies such as mine and across the north of England.
Some action was taken by the previous Government. The right hon. Members for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—the then Deputy Prime Minister—recognised the scale of the problems, and it is right and proper to say that parts of Manchester, such as Hulme, were redeveloped under the previous Government. However, that redevelopment was no compensation for the damage done by the recklessness of that Government in the 1980s and early 1990s, and which will literally blight my community for many years to come.
I pay tribute to the Government for their attempt systematically to promote regeneration. East Manchester, for example, has obtained a £75 million package, and that money is making and will make a real difference to and significant inroads into the problems that we inherited. Moreover, the Government are not treating regeneration as a simple issue, but are considering it as part of an overall social and economic process.
The Government are concentrating on the various issues affecting my constituents, and education has become a major part of their drive. Ministers are also placing emphasis on joined-up thinking between the various Departments, tying health, for example, into regeneration. Ministers have implemented key initiatives—which the Opposition would end—such as the working families tax credit and the minimum wage, which are desperately important to people in the community that I serve. The new deal in Greater Manchester is already offering opportunity to young people, 120,000 of whom have gained sustainable employment because of the Government's action. Conservative Members would not have allowed those programmes to proceed, but would end them if they could. That is why Conservative Members are seen to be so irrelevant.
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that she will make the point that if Conservative — belong to a party with no credibility in northern cities—really want to have a debate and examine the north-south divide, they should talk a little, please, about the north of England. The hon. Member for Ashford barely mentioned it in his speech—his was a speech for his own constituents in the south, dictated largely by the preoccupations of the Conservative party, which is now down to its rock-bottom layers of support and desperately trying to appeal to those. The speech was irrelevant to my constituents.
I should like to spend a few moments outlining what Labour Members expect from the Government. It is important that we have reinvestment in our urban communities, which are important not only for the cities themselves, but for the wider community. It is important that the Greater Manchester travel-to-work area and community has a strong city at its heart, so that it is not plagued with the sort of problems that we have seen. We have to deal with the issues of crime, poverty, ill health and poor education, which have blighted the lives and futures of my constituents. Such action is beginning to be taken.
I hope that Ministers will also take on board some recommendations on necessary action. Perhaps we need more joined-up thinking in Government. One problem encountered by local planners in my constituency, which has both a single regeneration programme and a new deal programme, is the difficulty of tying the two together. One scheme is administered by the regional development agency, but the other by Government office of the north-west. We need a little more creative thinking to ensure that joined-up Government really does deliver the maximum bang for the bucks provided.
Although I realise that it is a more difficult issue, it would help enormously if we could incorporate European funding structures into mainstream Government programmes, so that we are able to ensure maximum delivery on the Government's objectives. I ask my hon. Friends the Ministers seriously to address those issues.
We should also recognise the Government's achievements. I hope that Ministers will recognise how important the minimum wage has been already and the importance of sending a signal that it will keep pace with changes in average earnings in society generally. In the

coming weeks and months, Labour Members will be looking to the Government to send those signals. I hope that my hon. Friends will take that message back.
Powerful signals could be given on the long-term future of Manchester and the region. The future of Daresbury has been mentioned. There is a battle between Oxford and the north-west of England for the siting of new investment and the decision lies at the highest level in the Government. They could send an important signal by recognising that when there is an equal case—or, on this occasion, a stronger case—for a northern location, it should be accepted, because we need to maintain the human capital and skills base in the north-west and throughout the north of England.
I hope that my hon. Friends understand the disappointment that has sometimes been felt. We hear that the dome was recently granted an extra £60 million of funding. That contrasts with the difficulty that Manchester has had in persuading the Government to look kindly on investment and development in the Commonwealth games site. Those are important issues for Manchester.

Mr. Soames: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lloyd: I am glad to have the support of at least one Conservative Member from the south of England. It is an important issue, because with a one-nation Government we need investment in sporting, cultural and other facilities not just in London and the south-east, but throughout the country. Even at this stage, the Government could decide to make Manchester the home of athletics in this country. That would need investment in the Commonwealth games site, but it would leave a legacy for athletics throughout the United Kingdom that would not result from the proposed development in London, if that is to be the site of the 2005 world athletics championship.
The strongest signal that the Government can give is to make it clear that they are determined never again to let the people of my constituency be crucified in the wanton and cavalier fashion that we saw during the 18 years of Conservative Government. Every time that I listen to my hon. Friends, that is the commitment that I hear. There will be no more Tories for Manchester, because what they did was wicked and it will take us a long time to overcome the problems that resulted from that wickedness.

Mr. John Gummer: I had intended to draw together the issues on which there is agreement across the House, but that was before I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). I was thrilled to hear his description of Liberal Democrat policy. We all know what their policy really is: they bang on the door, find out what the person wants to hear and tell them that. If the person next door wants to hear something different, they tell them that instead. Every Liberal Democrat local authority operates on that basis.
There is no common Liberal Democrat policy on the issue—that was proved when the hon. Gentleman tried to explain what they would do. They want a lot of regions and referendums, as well as two new taxes. I wonder what would happen if people decided in a referendum that they did not want the new taxes. Would they then not have


them? The hon. Gentleman said that the regions would not be too big, but the localities would also have to have their say. It is the usual nonsense from the Liberal Democrats, desperate to appear that they have a policy when all that they want to do is be antagonistic—significantly so to the Conservative party and not quite so significantly so to the Labour party. Their policy is "A plague on both your houses", because they will not face the real tough issues.
I congratulate the—

Mr. Steen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gummer: In a moment, because I want to get my congratulation out before it sticks in my throat. I congratulate the Minister on a range of measures that, I hope that he agrees, have continued the kind of policies that I tried to introduce. He wants to improve the quality and design of the homes that are built. I congratulate him on his recent announcement.
It is a pity that the Department has no specialist advisers to bring fresh architectural design into its work. It is a pity that they are all political advisers and not specialist advisers. It is important for a Department that has not been marked for its design consciousness in the past to have new, bright and unusual ideas. That would happen if the Minister were to bring in people from outside. It would make up for the clearly mistaken views that were put forward by Professor Crow and others who take an old-fashioned view.
It is not sensible to make party political comments about lack of density in building. We all know the reason for that. The planning establishment went on and on about how we should not have town planning and how we had to have low-density development. When I introduced proposals for higher densities, I was told that I was going back to Victorian times. Some Labour Members, then in opposition, echoed those planning mantras. The Minister will have significant support from the Opposition in seeking to explain to planners that quality and design matter more than density. They matter whether the development is in the north of England or the south of England. That is a crucial issue.
The Minister has to understand why the debate was introduced. After the winding up of the urban development corporations, which quite properly had a period of time in which to do remarkable jobs in Manchester, Sheffield and many of the great northern cities, we need to consider what has replaced them. So far, it is difficult to see in the actions of the Leeds authority or the Sheffield authority, under its previous administration or its present administration, the verve, new ideas and excitement that was put into those cities by the UDCs. We have not seen it yet. I do not want to say that we will not see it, but I believe that the Minister has an important job to do in trying to find new ways of looking at urban regeneration, which is so important and which the UDCs in large measure began.
In those circumstances, the Minister must understand why we feel that there is a real lack of enthusiasm for the regeneration that is necessary in our great northern cities. After all, when we talk about guilt, we should consider the guilt of Labour councils that destroyed great cities by pulling down buildings and building badly in their place,

instead of providing the regeneration which all parties now agree ought to be the answer. There is a great deal of guilt around, but there is also a great deal of common view. I suggest, therefore, that we build on that common view and try to get a bit more oomph—if Hansard cannot spell oomph I shall do it for them—into what the Government are doing in the great cities of the north.
The Government also have to realise, however, that large numbers of people live in the countryside. The Prime Minister's reception at the National Farmers Union was not wildly over the top. The delegates recognised that the right hon. Gentleman's speech lacked answers and demonstrated a failure of understanding. He suggested only that they should consult. We have had three years of crisis and we are now in the business of consultation. The Prime Minister got a raspberry for a very good reason: he presented no vision of any kind about the rural areas of Britain—so those in rural areas have begun to ask whether the Government have anything to say to them at all. If that conference was any guide, the answer is no. It is no good saying that the Government understand the rural areas. People in rural areas feel beleaguered and do not believe that the Government will try even to protect the countryside outside our cities.
I am trying to be as helpful as possible. That is the truth. Just as the Government must show more commitment to regeneration in the great northern cities, so they must show a commitment, in which people can believe, to the protection of the countryside. It is no good the Minister telling me that 10,000 new houses in the green belt next door to Stevenage are part of his policy for protecting the countryside. That will not wash. It is no good him saying that the Government were unable to turn down the plan. They could have done so; they had the legal means to go back on their decision.
What did the Government say when I raised the matter? Ministers all had pieces of paper telling them to say that I had allowed large amounts of the green belt to be used, so I looked up what I had allowed. I allowed no housing in the green belt. The major project was the extension of Manchester airport—it would be difficult to build an airport in the centre of Manchester. Who asked me to extend Manchester airport? It was the Labour Members of Parliament for Manchester. I also found that I had allowed a development to create jobs in Woking.
The Minister must accept that the whole policy started badly with Stevenage. Then, instead of developing the centre of Newcastle, the Government wanted to build 2,000 homes on the edge of the city—against the advice of someone who is now one of their revered Ministers. He probably got the job because he was so effective at putting over that point.
The Government went on to announce that they would put aside a large greenfield, greenbelt site in Birmingham for new building. It is no good telling us that they support open fields, they do not—what they do is not what they say. Until they do what they say, we cannot be expected to believe them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) was accused of not making a speech today—although my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made an excellent speech. The accusation is hard to sustain when the Deputy Prime Minister is not in the Chamber for the debate. When the right hon.


Gentleman gives a major speech it is to the Fabian Society, not to the House. He is not in the Chamber telling us what to do; he is doing that outside.
The Minister should be careful when he makes criticisms. The real criticism is of the contempt in which the House is held by the Deputy Prime Minister and of his failure to announce in the House, to the House, major policy changes—making such announcements instead to his cronies in the Fabian Society.
From time to time, I have fallen out with my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells—about Asda building in certain places—so I cannot be described as sycophantic. However, it is an odd House of Commons in which someone who has provided opportunities for keeping jobs and for creating jobs and wealth should be deemed unsuitable to comment on the environment, transport and the regions. The Minister should realise that no member of his ministerial team has ever created a job in his life—that is the problem with the Government. They do not realise that it is not only the northern towns which have no confidence in them—that is evident in the resignation of so eminent a man as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) —but that the same is true of the rural areas and of the conservationists. They do not have the confidence of the wealth creators of Britain, to whom they have not given the certainty that such people need.
The only way to get people to redevelop city centres is to make it clear that they will not be granted approval for development plans outside cities. If the Government did their job properly, they would not hide behind legalistic matters and Professor Crow's document; they would say clearly, "Professor Crow is wrong. We will not allow 1.1 million houses to be built on the green belt—not because we want to suck up to voters in the south, but because if we do so, voters in the north will never have the regeneration that they need, and the regeneration needed in so many of our southern cities will not take place either."
I think that the Minister's heart is in the right place—very often his mouth is too—but he has to put his Government's actions in the right context. The person who he has got to get at first is the Prime Minister. His answer to urban deprivation in Islington was not to improve education there, but to take his children to a school five boroughs away. I am not introducing private family matters into the debate—it is an example of "Don't improve it, go somewhere else." That is true of too many of Labour's answer to inner-city problems.
I want the inner cities to be improved and I want action, not words. I want a Prime Minister who stays there and shows that his family will put up with the education that Labour's consistent control of Islington has destroyed. It is not just housing and the environment that will regenerate our cities; it is schools to which people will want to send their children. Most of the movement out of our cities has been by young families who have looked for places where their children can be better educated. If we get the schools right, we can do a great deal more about regeneration. If only this Prime Minister had led the way.

Ms Hazel Blears: I am beginning to feel a slight sense of déjà vu. Just three months ago, we had a debate on virtually the same issues and, again, it was called by the Opposition. On that occasion, I accused the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) of living on another planet, because he did not seem to be in touch with the real world. He seems to have vanished into thin air and I had hoped that the Opposition's new representatives would have learned something from that debate. Yet the contribution that we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) almost seems to be an attempt to airbrush the Conservatives' role out of history and to whitewash the whole record of their time in government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) was right to remind people in the country and the House of the dreadful wickedness—wickedness was the right word to use—of the actions and policies of successive Tory Governments. They created many of the dreadful problems that this Labour Government is now having to address in many of our cities, not just in the north, but in all parts of Britain. I am amazed that Conservative Members can stand there with impunity and accept no responsibility whatever for the actions and policies that they introduced.
Conservatives do not like to be reminded of the economic mismanagement that led to many of our problems. The failures and recessions decimated manufacturing industry and put hundreds of thousands of people out of work in many cities and that led to the spiral of despair, dereliction and decline with which we are having to deal today.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way before she does herself an injury. If things are going so well, why did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) resign?

Ms Blears: My hon. Friend will undertake a magnificent job on behalf of his constituents. In future, he will raise many of the issues about which we are concerned. If the hon. Gentleman finds it disturbing that Labour Members have passion and integrity about the issues on which they speak, I suggest that he remind his own colleagues of the depth and intensity that we feel about these issues. We represent our constituents and see on a day-to-day basis the effects of the Tory policies that damaged and decimated many of our areas.
The massive rise in unemployment, particularly in my constituency, led to that spiral of decline. People had no jobs, no hope, no skills and no chance of a decent future. The problems will take many years to begin to turn around, not simply the two and a half years of the Labour Government.
The Tories' response—then as now—was absolutely pathetic. They did not invest in people; they invested in bricks and mortar and prestige projects. They told us to move and to look for work elsewhere. They did not encourage regeneration by empowering local communities to do things for themselves. Instead, they had the cult of the individual and selfishness—everyone for himself and get on if we can. That is not my idea of rebuilding communities.
If I am honest, I do not believe that the Opposition care about regeneration. I do not think that they have thought deeply about how to build capacity in local communities; how to involve local people in changing their neighbourhoods; how to make sure that youngsters have the skills to enable them to take the jobs that are on offer; how to give people the self-confidence to stand up to crime and disorder in their communities and how to make a difference. Theirs is a glib, superficial approach. The issues are difficult, long-term and structural, and complex approaches are required to make a difference.
None of that matters to the Opposition. They have demonstrated an obsession with protecting the green belt and a last-minute, unconvincing conversion to revitalising cities as a way out of the corner that they have painted themselves into. As is usual with the Tories, that does not add up. It has already been said that they want to abolish the regional development agencies. How else are we to get the land assembly, infrastructure and inward investment that will bring jobs to many of our hard-pressed cities? They have no answer to that.
The Tories want to abolish the minimum wage, which is helping 2,000 families in Salford, and the working families tax credit, which is benefiting 2,500 families in Salford by between £24 and £100 a week. They want to take that money away from those families. They oppose child benefit increases, and 10,000 children in Salford would not be lifted out of poverty if it were up to the Tories. Those are their policies.
The Tories want to abolish the new deal. In my constituency, youth unemployment has fallen by 60 per cent. and long-term unemployment has fallen by 70 per cent. We have a new deal pilot project for the over-50s. A lady in my constituency has just got her first job for 15 years under that project. The Tories' policies would take away opportunities from many people that I represent.
If we consider what the Labour Government have done in the past two and a half years, we see a dramatic contrast in my area alone. We have a single regeneration budget project in Seedley and Langworthy, which provides £25 million to help people to build their way out of decline and dereliction. A new deal for communities project is currently being built in Kersal and Charlestown. Again, local people are coming together and deciding what are their priorities for the city and what they want to happen.
In our education action zone, we had a children's university this year. For the first time 700 children from the most deprived inner-city area went to Salford university and spent a week doing science, jazz, dance, percussion, engineering and a range of other subjects to which they would not otherwise have had access. At the end they graduated and got certificates, and their parents came to the university—people who would never normally cross the threshold of a university.
Those long-term regeneration projects are crucial if we are to begin to turn the tide. That investment will not pay off straight away; it will take years. If only the previous Government had thought about some of the ways in which they could have invested in young people, we might not be in our present difficulties.
We have a sure start project in Pendleton, which is investing £3,000 in every child born there over the next three years, giving them a decent start and opportunities.

That is real regeneration: projects that last and are embedded in local communities; projects that local people own and which give them pride, self-respect and confidence. That is not easy, and it takes time. We cannot do it overnight. People have expectations. We have made a brilliant start, but there is a long way to go.
I suggest to the Government a couple of things that they could do to help us to revitalise our cities further. We need to review the standard spending assessment formula. I know that we are having a review, but I feel strongly that inner-city areas lose grant because people are leaving those areas. The families that they leave behind often have more problems that the people who leave. Those who leave are the more able members of the community, while those who stay have a multiplicity of problems and still need help from social, housing and education services. We need to be much more flexible about the way in which the formula applies to cities.
We lose money because people go from welfare to work. I am delighted that in Salford unemployment has gone down by 13.5 per cent. However, people in poor communities often get low-paid, casual, part-time, temporary jobs. They do not go from being on benefit into a job that pays £20,000 a year, with all that it entails. They still need local authority housing, education and social services to help them to cope. We have lost £4 million this year because we have been successful in getting people into work. We do not want to be penalised for that.
We have to tackle crime if we are to get the most from our social exclusion initiatives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central said. I want to echo several other contributions by saying that if we are serious about regeneration, we have to create high-quality jobs.
I must mention the vital Diamond synchrotron project at Daresbury. The case for locating the facility at Daresbury is very strong. It is already a world-class centre of synchrotron research expertise and has an unrivalled international scientific reputation. The site is in the right place; planning consent has already been granted; it is within 20 minutes of Manchester airport; it is adjacent to a new research development project that could create 7,000 new jobs; it is in an assisted area. A decision by the Government to invest in science and technology in the north-west would be a massive signal of confidence to the community and investors.
The competing claim by Oxford does not meet the Government's priorities for investment and regeneration. If we are serious about developing centres of excellence in every part of Britain, we should grasp the opportunity. Let us make the Diamond project the jewel in the crown of the north-west. It is in our Labour heartland, and it is overwhelmingly the right thing to do.
The motion describes the need to create one Britain. Two very different Britains are on offer today; we have heard about them both. The Tory Britain is of unemployment, poverty, run-down public services, division and dereliction, while the Labour Britain is of rising—and I hope full—employment, a decent income for hard-working families, education and health services of which we can be proud, and hope and opportunity. Faced with those two options, I know very well which the people of this country will choose. This Labour Government can and will deliver the kind of cities in which people want to live.

Mr. David Curry: If you believe that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will believe anything.
I assume that it is a matter of common sense that denying development in the south does nothing automatically to encourage it in the north. We must be careful not to make that rather silly arithmetical assumption. The north has its own needs which must be dealt with by policies designed to address them. We know what they are: the exodus from cities, whether to the immediate neighbourhood or beyond; surplus housing; dismal education performance, as the Office for Standards in Education reports in Leeds and Sheffield either have shown or are about to show; and problems of community safety which make people not want to live on estates. I shall address my remarks mainly to the subject of housing, so I am grateful to the Minister for Housing and Planning for remaining in his place.
In the north-east, for example, there is an annual population decline of 1.4 per cent.—3,500 people a year are expected to leave—but household numbers are increasing due to the phenomenon experienced across the country. There are 9,400 local authority voids—3.2 per cent. —but, across all sectors and the range of tenure, there are 77,000 unfit houses. The real problem is the inexorable rise in the number of properties that are difficult to let: 14 per cent. in the local authority sector and 10 per cent. in the housing association sector.
The north-east's annual clearance programme accounts for 1,400 properties a year, yet regional planning guidance provides for the building of 6,000 new houses a year. So, there will be a continuation of over-supply. It takes a lot of money to demolish properties—£16,000 a property under the Housing Corporation's scheme, "New Tools". There is already a dislocation of the planning process and real need on the ground.
Let us look at Newcastle slightly more closely. Of 36,500 council properties, 1,600—4.3 per cent.—are voids. The problem is one of turnover: 8,000 properties a year see a change of tenant. How on earth do we build a stable neighbourhood with a 20 per cent. turnover? The tenancy structure shows a division between very old people and youngsters. There is a great hole in the middle of tenants between the ages of 30 and 45, who have families and, let us say, jobs, who might play an active part in the community.
The reason for such a hole is obvious. One can buy a terraced house in a decent part of Newcastle for £30,000 or a semi-detached Barrett-type house on north Tyneside for less than £50,000. Why pay £40 a week rent when one can put that money into a mortgage?
Let us consider —I see the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) in his place. With a housing stock of 65,000 and the same problem of an ageing tenant population, the city calculates that in 10 to 15 years, up to one third of its tenants will have died or will need to move to different accommodation. There is no new generation of tenants that the city can identify coming along behind, which is one of the reasons why it is actively canvassing transfer options.
Let us take Liverpool, one of the greatest of our northern cities—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) is present. The council has 38,000 properties and other registered social landlords have roughly the same, but in the city there are 15,000

too many properties, of all sorts of tenure. The local authority has embarked on a programme of mothballing or demolishing houses, simply because there is no use for the stock.
I shall not to continue my recital of statistics. Instead, I shall suggest three areas in which Government action is needed, the first of which is stock transfer. That activity received great impetus from the ability to set up housing companies being established under legislation introduced by the previous Government; the Minister for Housing and Planning and I sat on Benches opposite to those upon we now sit when that legislation was passed. The projected programme is for 300,000 transfers, but that includes the whopping Birmingham transfer of about 90,000 units.
There are decisions to be made. As the Minister knows, there is a problem with penalties on the early repayment of debt that are consequent on transfers being made. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take a firm view of the size of transfer permitted: we do not want transfers from one monopoly to another. It is the nature of the management that counts, not the ownership. There is a real danger of great cities being carved up into zones, each of which has a monopoly provider.
I would prefer the division to be achieved in such a way that associations own properties in different parts of a city, so that tenants can compare the performance of different registered social landlords. In addition, we must encourage the development of mixed tenures within housing corporations, housing companies and housing associations, and encourage them to offer tenures across the full range, so as to achieve the sort of mixed development that we know is necessary.
We need a new concept of social housing. We must get away from its present characterisation as residual housing. We are witnessing the death of the council house, but not the death of social housing. We need to find a new definition and a new perspective on social housing, so that it addresses the social problems that hon. Members have identified.
The second issue I shall examine is that of VAT on home refurbishment and repair and on greenfield sites. Let me state clearly, so that there is no confusion, that I would be in favour of a uniform rate of VAT covering greenfield development and housing refurbishment and repair. I asked the Treasury how much that would cost. The reply was £670 million, but I do not believe a pound of it, for very good reasons.
Let us make some assumptions. Let us say that 175,000 new houses are built; at about £80,000 each, that brings in £700 million at 5 per cent. VAT—£600 million if social housing is exempted. According to calculations carried out two years ago by Business Strategies Ltd., we find that such a change in VAT leads to more small firms registering for VAT, more VAT being collected from those who are registered, and higher levels of activity. There are fewer empty homes—the Minister was and remains a great fan of the empty homes initiative—with about 30,000 properties being brought back into use. Let us assume an end to work on listed buildings being categorised as "new" so as to avoid VAT. The overall result is additional VAT receipts of more than £100 million.
If we use the English house condition survey—a little out of date, but the relative values still hold good—we find that the total declared private spending on


improvement, repairs and maintenance is £20 billion, and public spending is £3 billion, giving £23 billion in spending across all sectors. That should yield £4 billion in VAT, but the actual yield is £1.78 billion. Either there is gargantuan evasion, or an enormous proportion of work is being done by people who are below the VAT threshold. I think the truth is probably a bit of both, but it is certain that the scale of evasion is immense.
Even if no extra building work results from a reduction in VAT, which is an extremely pessimistic assumption, and if no evasion occurs, which is an extremely optimistic assumption, so the two assumptions balance each other out, and VAT is charged on all building works, we are talking about a VAT figure of about £1.35 billion in today's prices. That second calculation shows a fall of £400 million in Government VAT receipts.
However, the measure would actually result in a net gain for the Treasury of between £300 million and £800 million. The Treasury reckons a loss only because it makes no allowance for any change in the rate of black work or lessening of evasions, or for whether small firms are registered for VAT and larger ones consistently charge for it. The Treasury makes no calculations in respect of whether customers would be happier to have proper builders and proper receipts than cowboys to whom they pay no VAT. We do not know whether private investors, contractors or regeneration agencies would carry out more property improvement and renovation. The chances are that they would, but the Treasury answer to every single one of these questions is no. I do not believe that.
I suggest that there should be a pilot scheme in three or four major conurbations to see what would happen. The VAT on greenfield sites need not be charged for the purpose of the experiment. Let us see what is right.
I do not expect the Minister to reply in this debate, but I shall make sure that Hansard has a clear record of the points that I have made, and I should like a letter setting out the figures, which are crucial to the Government's response to the Rogers report. The Treasury response, as always, has been calculated to give the least information, and has little credibility. The issue is extremely important.
I mention education briefly. Education action zones are fine, but the problems exist in far too many schools. We are beginning to learn that putting strong heads into individual schools will do a great deal more than the constant multiplication of zones, which last only for a limited period and are spread almost across the political spectrum.
Finally, the Government have a major decision to take. They must decide what their relationship will be with the regions and with local government in the regions—in other words, what political geometry they will use to address the issue.
We all know that the regional assemblies have floated off into never-never-land. Either the Government believe in local decision-making, a regional agenda and democratic accountability, or they do not. We need to know what they plan. The Government promised these things.

Ms Margaret Moran: indicated dissent.

Mr. Curry: It is no good the hon. Lady shaking her head. Those were the Government's pledges when they came to power. The Government judge outputs, whereas

they should perhaps judge outcomes. To give a little more confidence to local government, the Government should draw up a contract, find out what it can deliver, and be less prescriptive about the methods by which it does so and more concerned about the outcomes.
We all have lessons to learn about the degree to which we have been prescriptive about how other democratic and representative institutions should work. We now have an opportunity to find out whether we can achieve real regeneration in the great cities of Britain, irrespective of where they lie. The problems of Plymouth are just as bad as the problems of Liverpool and Newcastle.
There could not be a finer test of all of us than to give democracy a chance of achieving that. We should give it the means to do so and judge it by what it delivers. We could then all rest a little more easy on our rhetoric.

Mr. Colin Burgon: I shall try to bring another northern perspective to the debate and to keep my contribution brief.
The position adopted in the debate by the Conservatives is a simple one, as befits the sophistication of their current thinking. According to their stance, there are two Britains, with a north-south divide. We have, in their view of the world, a south that is booming, overheating and suffering from overdevelopment, and northern cities that are declining.
I want to examine the contention that northern cities are declining. I am aware that my colleagues from cities such as Liverpool and Manchester have already pitched in, so I shall restrict my remarks to my home city of Leeds, the city in which I was born and raised, and one of whose eight constituencies I am proud to represent.
At the last election, the Conservatives were effectively wiped out in northern cities. As a result, it seems that only sporadic and inaccurate information is received by the Conservatives about our northern cities, which exist somewhere on the fringes of their known world. Indeed, I am tempted to say that those on the Conservative Front Bench probably know more about Royston Vasey than they do about the great city of Leeds.
As a Leeds person, I know that Leeds has had to respond to tremendous challenges as a result of the collapse of traditional industries such as clothing, in which my father and mother worked, and engineering. Leeds does have its problems. For example, the Leeds inner area, consisting of 10 local government wards and home to about 225,000 people, is among the top 10 per cent. of the most deprived wards in England.
We urgently need to improve skills and increase qualifications in the work force and among the unemployed, of whom 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively have no qualifications. We do have high levels of deprivation, low household income and high benefit dependency. However, it is wide of the mark to deduce from those figures that Leeds is a declining northern city. Like many others, it is a two-speed city.
The way in which Leeds has adjusted to the decline of its traditional industries is a great story. The facts refute the idea that Leeds is a declining northern city. Overall, Leeds has performed strongly in creating jobs. In the 1990s, employment increased by 12 per cent., which means more than 36,000 extra jobs; financial and business services


employment grew by 36 per cent; and manufacturing output also increased by 36 per cent. A projection based on a Cambridge Econometrics model suggests that employment in Leeds will increase by 11 per cent.—above the national average—between 2000 and 2010.
The Yorkshire and Humberside regional economic strategies document stated:
Leeds is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe in terms of employment, fuelled mainly by the growth in the financial and professional services … Leeds is one of Europe's most successful job generating cities.
If those on the Conservative Front Bench do not believe the figures, I urge them to visit Leeds.
Last summer, Conservative Members had an away day—or a "bonding session"—at a five-star hotel in Leeds. It is a pity that they did not catch a bus to the city centre and see what a vibrant, lively city Leeds is. They should have examined the regeneration of the riverside area, where people are repopulating the city centre. They should have visited the shopping areas, such as the Victoria quarter. For sport and culture, they should have nipped to Elland road to watch Leeds United, a rising power in the soccer world.
If a bus journey is not to Conservative Members' liking—they probably would not recognise a bus—they could have caught a train and arrived at Leeds City station, which is undergoing £165 million of improvements to its infrastructure. It will be one of the busiest railway stations in England. If they wanted to fly in, they could have witnessed a similar rate of development at Leeds-Bradford airport. I hope that Conservative Members will reconsider before they write off northern cities such as Leeds simply to advance a poorly thought-out political argument.
There is a complex pattern of economic and social performance across England. Any attempt to simplify that into a north-south divide is a generalisation, which masks the great variations within regions. Poor economic and social conditions are not confined to one part of the country. Five of the 10 most deprived local authority areas in England are in London.
I look forward to hearing the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman admit, when he sums up, that their motion is flawed, that Conservative Members have misrepresented our great northern cities and that he acknowledges Leeds as an energetic, creative and confident city. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) is writing that down because I shall be listening carefully to his response. Writing off our northern cities is offensive and patronising.
I can reveal that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) is not in his place because my speech was leaked to the Conservative party. He used to have an office bang in the middle of Leeds. He knows that everything I say is true and therefore he could not come to the Dispatch Box to refute my arguments.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I endorse what the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) said about Leeds, which, like Manchester, is a great, exciting city. The interpretation he placed on my hon. Friends' speeches showed clearly that he had not listened to them, because none of them said anything offensive or patronising about Leeds.
Two jolly things have happened today. First, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) bitterly criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) for saying nothing about the north of England, and then made a 15-minute speech exclusively about the north in which he omitted to mention the south. Secondly, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) made a passionate speech about her constituency. We are all here to talk about what we know and what we can contribute to the debate.
I welcome the Minister back after his absence. I want to raise a matter that he and I have debated previously, and which relates to West Sussex. I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). How can the Government seriously pretend to care about the countryside when they allow the planning outrages that are currently in the pipeline?
How can it be sensible to build in Hampshire and Sussex, when large tracts of land in Portsmouth and Southampton, not to mention Bradford and Liverpool, could well absorb the housing? What does that say about joined-up government? Even if the Government dump the wretched Crow report, as I hope and pray they will, they have made unauthorised changes to West Sussex, which means that one of the most beautiful and rural counties in Britain will never be the same again.
The Minister is a genial chap and realises that none of this is personal, but I want him to know about the real contempt and anger felt in West Sussex at the behaviour of the Government over the present planning issue. The campaign has been brilliantly reflected by two energetic local newspapers in West Sussex—the Mid Sussex Times and the West Sussex Gazette—whose letter pages every week are full of correspondence from people who are outraged at the way in which the Government have behaved towards West Sussex.
All parties in Sussex agreed a structure plan, which was approved by one of Her Majesty's inspectors in May 1997. It was a proper, well-thought-out and careful plan, which had been fully consulted on. All the parish and district councils and the relevant bodies had come together to agree it, but the Deputy Prime Minister overturned it in an outrageous decision in December 1997. In addition to the 37,800 houses agreed, he imposed an additional 13,000 houses.
A new town will probably have to be planted in the green fields near Horsham; the Sussex coastal communities will have their last remaining gaps plundered; and the landscape in central and Mid-Sussex will come to resemble that of New Jersey unless we are careful. Many villagers are terrified at the prospect of what will happen to that beautiful and romantic scenery, quite unnecessarily.
I urge the Minister to understand that the Government's proposals seem to brush aside the terrible problem of congestion and pressure on our services and infrastructure. The ultimate effect of what the Government propose—this is the stupidity of the Labour proposals—will be the choking of economic growth, which will prevent our part of the world from achieving its true economic status.
Of course, there has to be development. I sympathise with the Government in that they have to reach agreement on sensible proposals, but what is proposed in Sussex is mad. As the Minister knows, the truth is that the infrastructure in Mid-Sussex in particular and West


Sussex in general cannot cope. If many more houses are built, we will run out of water and the roads are inadequate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) said that there were not enough sewers in his constituency. I cannot report on the condition of the sewers in West Sussex, but I am sure that it is deplorable and deserving of much Labour investment. On a previous occasion, I described the number of cars in West Sussex. We are facing a "Carmageddon". There are not enough schools, roads or hospital facilities but, in that chaos, the Labour party intends to build another 50,000 new houses.
Will the Minister explain to my constituents how he can square that planning vandalism with the principles of sustainable development to which the Government signed up with such bally-hoo at Rio and Kyoto? What flows from the Government's obligations to sustainable development? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said, 10,000 new houses are to be built on a greenfield site between Stevenage and Hemel Hempstead, which is very caring. There are to be 90,000 new homes in Devon.
How can it make sense to build 2,500 new houses on a greenfield site outside Newcastle when there are 4,000 empty homes in the city? The north-south divide is greater than ever and it is driven and fuelled by an obdurate and ignorant Government. Surrey residents have an average household income 71 per cent. higher than that of people who live in Tyne and Wear—that cannot be right.
I conclude merely by asking how the Minister can stand at the Dispatch Box and tell the people of Britain that the Government care about the countryside when they insist on such rural vandalism.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: This has been a good if short debate. It has been a shorter debate than it need have been for two reasons. First, there was the Home Secretary's crass incompetence in not tabling the right amendment in the previous debate. Secondly, the Minister for Housing and Planning spoke for more than half an hour and spent nearly one third of that time on a bunch of unjustified and ill-informed slurs on my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), which simply underlined the fact that he had nothing new to say on the key issues. The rest of his speech was the sort of vacuous posturing that we have all come to expect from him.
The Minister tried to deny that there is a north-south divide, or that there is migration on a serious and growing scale from north to south. However, if he was right about that—even on a random basis, that must occur occasionally—why is he proposing to build 1.1 million, or even 670,000, new homes in the south-east? They are plainly not needed, so why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) asked, is he dithering about disowning the ghastly Crow report?
The hon. Gentleman talked about the north-south divide as if it did not exist. Had he read his own urban task force report, he would have seen that it highlighted the disproportionate level of demand between north and south. There is ample evidence of the different earnings and incomes of residents in different parts. For example, Surrey residents have an average household income that is 71 per cent. higher than that of Tyne and Wear. Has he

read the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's report, conducted by the new policy institute, which concluded that the gap between the richest and poorest in Britain widened in the first year of the Labour Government, with 1 million more people earning less than two fifths of the national average income? Will he please spare us his lectures about Disraeli?
The Minister also said—I made a note of it because it struck me as such an amazing claim by a Minister in his Department—that the Government were building a successful and united country. Leaving aside the vandalism of devolution, the hon. Gentleman's policies simply do not pass the "Kilfoyle" test. They have not passed muster even with one of his valued former Front-Bench colleagues.
It is rich for the Minister to lecture the rest of us about the green belt, particularly in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Only last April, the hon. Gentleman said:
in certain cases where it is desirable in terms of urban extension and sustainability, there may be a case for reconsidering green-belt boundaries."—[Official Report, 29 April 1999; Vol. 330, c. 531.]
What kind of message does that send to planners, local authorities and the population of areas such as the south-east? Does he realise that brownfield development is falling, not rising, under this Government, and that the latest figures show that only 52 per cent. of dwellings were built on brownfield sites in the previous year? In reality, the Government are not even achieving their own brownfield development target.
The speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) was the usual protracted Liberal Democrat whinge. It is some indication of the importance that the Liberal Democrats attach to the issue, particularly in relation to the south-east, that they have found about the only Member of their parliamentary party who is not a Front-Bench spokesman to come and speak on their behalf. It is something of a rarity to find a Liberal Democrat who does not have a Front-Bench title.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) abused us for ignoring the north and its interests, when nothing could be further from the truth. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) nailed that particular inaccuracy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, who has an honourable record in planning and environmental matters and always speaks with great authority in the House, pointed out that the Liberals always ask for more government and more interference. The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who was a challenge to Hansard if nothing else, talked about rebuilding communities, but does not she realise that traditionally Labour-supporting communities feel abandoned by the Government? It is no good her talking blithely about what she called Labour heartlands as some are not Labour heartlands any more, and some will cease to be so in future if the Government do not wake up to the problems described in the motion.

Mr. Don Foster: Would the hon. Gentleman describe this part of his speech as a whinge?

Mr. Waterson: It is merely a recital of self-evident facts.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman has made a serious point, as democracy matters in our cities—there


should be a political challenge—but can he tell me why the Conservative party no longer fights local elections in the worst-affected parts of my constituency?

Mr. Waterson: As shadow Local Government Minister, I must do something about that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon spoke with authority about housing, local government and regional planning guidance, which has lost the plot. [Interruption.] It calls for more homes where they clearly are not needed. He adopted an imaginative approach to the financial aspects of the motion, which the Minister will accept raised interesting thoughts on which he will want to reflect.
The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) described himself as a Leeds person and purported to lecture us—and, in particular, me—about the value of Leeds. I was born in Leeds, brought up in Leeds and educated in Leeds until I went to university, so he cannot tell me anything about Leeds that I do not already know. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. We cannot have so much noise.

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) joined the general agreement that Leeds is splendid, but made an extremely eloquent case for Sussex and other parts of the south-east. I share his view. The Minister tried to pooh-pooh the genuine concern in the south-east about the Crow report, but where are the roads, the rail links, the schools, the hospitals and the natural resources such as water to meet the target of 1.1 million—or even 600,000 or 700,000—new homes? [HON. MEMBERS: "The sewers?"] Indeed, where are the sewers?
We are seeing the opposite of joined-up government. The Government are apparently paralysed in the face of a growing north-south divide and growing migration from north to south—so much so that they could not even carry their former Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), with them. The Crow report puts more than 430 sq km of rural land—an area larger than the Isle of Wight—under threat of urban development.
We need not come to the House to hear about Government policy; we need only read what the Deputy Prime Minister had to say to the Fabian Society. I am afraid that my membership has lapsed so I was unable to listen to his speech, but he clearly wants to become a hero by saying, "We don't want to go along with that wicked Crow report, which talks about 1.1 million new homes. We'll go for more than the Serplan figure, but less than 1.1 million." In other words, the Government intend to use the Crow report as a stalking horse for a much larger figure than Serplan had in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford set out clearly our policies to give more power to local communities so that local decisions can be made on local issues by local people. In contrast, the Government regularly duck the big issues and tend to kick matters such as their own brownfield target, the Rogers report, planning guidance, rural and urban White Papers and decisions on Crow and

other serious issues into the long grass. Under this Government, the long grass is the only grass that is safe. I urge my colleagues to support the motion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The House always has lively debates on this subject, and tonight has been no exception. I thank my hon. Friends, in particular, for their contributions. As for the Conservatives, they may have a new shadow spokesperson, but it is still the same old story.
We have debated the issue on a number of occasions. Labour Members are always happy to do so, because it is important, and because, each time we discuss it, the Tories' dismal record, and their inability to present any credible policies for the future, are repeatedly exposed. What has been highlighted again today is their failure—especially that of their Front Benchers—to grasp the complexity of the problems, or to come up with any new or workable measures to deal with those problems.
The Tories claim that they care about the issue but, for most of the debate, their Benches were denuded. Only a handful stayed the course to debate this important matter, including the new shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green).
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), I was struck not only by the lack of attention paid to northern cities by the hon. Member for Ashford in his unfortunate opening speech—I read in "Vacher's Parliamentary Companion" that he used to be a speech writer for the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), which may explain a lot—but by the terms in which the Opposition cast their motion, which is entitled "Northern Cities and Southern Green Fields". It is the old stereotype, and, like all stereotypes, it is a gross and inaccurate over-simplification. For their own political purposes, the Opposition choose to fuel the notion of a north-south divide—grimy cities in the north, and green fields in the south. As a northern woman, I can tell them that we in the north have our green fields too, and we want to keep them.

Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Hughes: I would love to take an intervention, but I am afraid that I have no time.
The wording of the motion obscures the fact that the real issues, both rural and urban, affect regions in both the north and the south of England. The quality of speeches from those on the Front Benches—the shallow, ill-informed rhetoric that we heard from the Opposition, and the detailed analysis of Government policy that we heard from my colleagues—could not have shown the difference in approach more starkly. [Interruption.] I can say that because it is true, as anyone who sat through the debate will know. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House again. There is far too much noise; we must be able to hear the Minister.

Ms Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Central, for Salford (Ms Blears) and for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) for redressing the balance.


Given the rather spiteful response of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), they must have hit a raw nerve for him to be drawn to such an extent. They reminded us of the damage done to their communities by the previous Government, and the fact that people in the north—like people everywhere else—want a decent life. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) clearly finds that terribly funny, but those people want a decent life and a good environment. They want their green fields too.

Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Hughes: I am sorry; I would love to, but I have only 10 minutes.
All my hon. Friends who spoke described ways in which the Government could continue to do more. We are considering all the issues that they raised in the urban White Paper. We need to keep and to continue to attract companies in the north, as well as the south, by all means possible—for instance, by providing facilities such as those at Daresbury.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was the only Conservative Member to talk about cities. He rightly mentioned the importance of housing and education to regeneration, and made several suggestions. Some of them are discussed in the report on popular housing, some we are actively considering as we develop our White Papers, and some will —are already involving—discussions with other Departments, including the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman's comments were very helpful.
In relation to rural areas—[Interruption.] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman may be done for now. As for rural areas, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) raised matters relating to the areas that they represent. I shall make a point about Stevenage that was not raised by any Opposition Members, and that is that the proposals will increase the green belt in Hertfordshire by nearly 5,000 hectares. The decisions are difficult, but we must take a balanced view. That approach is certainly resulting in an increase in green-belt land.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal made some sensible comments on design and density, with which I can agree. I do not accept for a moment his contention that the Government have done little, or are perceived to have done little, in dealing with rural problems. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, every year for the last decade of the Conservative Administration, there was a net loss of green belt. By contrast, since May 1997, there has been a gain of almost 30,000 hectares.
I do not have the time to detail all the occasions when the Conservative Government directed southern counties to increase their housing numbers because they failed to plan for social need. However, that is precisely what has happened in West Sussex.
We have yet to see whether the arrival of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on the Opposition Front Bench will change the Opposition's disastrous stance on these matters. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ditch the common-sense revolution for the nonsense that it is. Perhaps he will search for something else for the Tories to latch on to. If he does, he will face an insurmountable difficulty, and that is the Conservative

party's complete lack of credibility. It is the party that tried to create two Britains. It concreted over the countryside and abandoned any attempt to address the needs of the regions. Its record in the past is so dismal and its policies for the future are so bankrupt that nobody believes that its about-face from free market economics—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the debate has nearly come to a conclusion, but I will not tolerate hon. Members shouting across the Chamber.

Ms Hughes: Conservative Members do not like what they are hearing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that is their only response.
The Conservative party lacks credibility because nobody believes that its about-face from free-market economics to social and economic intervention is anything other than cynical opportunism. That just about sums up the contribution of the Conservative party to any serious analysis of, and discussion on, the serious and diverse problems facing people in our different regions. The Conservative party is opportunist, bankrupt and dismal.
What are the Opposition's contributions and what are their big ideas in addressing the problems that have been raised during the debate? They would batten down the hatches in the south-east and strangle the potential for economic growth in the eastern and southern regions, thereby holding back the UK economy as a whole and sending business off to Europe. They would dismantle the planning system and stop housing development, irrespective of the human consequences. They would abolish the regional development agencies, the very agencies that were set up to develop differentiated regional strategies to tackle inequalities between and within regions.
In stark contrast to that rag-bag of ill-conceived measures, the Government have a long-term, co-ordinated and joined-up strategy. It addresses, through the new deal and the minimum wage, the needs of individuals wherever they live. It addresses the needs of the disadvantaged areas, wherever they are. It tackles regional inequalities through the RDAs and through reform of planning—
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 321.

Division No. 60]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Boswell, Tim


Allan, Richard
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Amess, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Brady, Graham


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Brake, Tom


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Brand, Dr Peter


Baldry, Tony
Brazier, Julian


Ballard, Jackie
Breed, Colin


Beggs, Roy
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Browning, Mrs Angela


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Burnett, John


Bercow, John
Burns, Simon


Beresford, Sir Paul
Butterfill, John


Blunt, Crispin
Cash, William


Body, Sir Richard
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)






Chope, Christopher
Madel, Sir David


Clappison, James
Major, Rt Hon John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Malins, Humfrey


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Collins, Tim
May, Mrs Theresa


Colvin, Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Moore, Michael


Cotter, Brian
Moss, Malcolm


Cran, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Norman, Archie


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Ottaway, Richard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Page, Richard


Day, Stephen
Paice, James


Duncan, Alan
Paterson, Owen


Duncan Smith, Iain
Pickles, Eric


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Faber, David
Prior, David


Fabricant, Michael
Randall, John


Fallen, Michael
Rendel, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Robathan, Andrew


Flight, Howard
Robertson, Laurence


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Fox, Dr Liam
Ruffley, David


Fraser, Christopher
St Aubyn, Nick


Gale, Roger
Sanders, Adrian


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gibb, Nick
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gill, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Green, Damian
Soames, Nicholas


Greenway, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Grieve, Dominic
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hammond, Philip
Steen, Anthony


Hancock, Mike
Steen, Anthony


Harris, Dr Evan
Streeter, Gary


Harvey, Nick
Stunell, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Swayne, Desmond


Hayes, John
Syms, Robert


Heald, Oliver
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Horam, John
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Townend, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tredinnick, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Trend, Michael


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tyler, Paul


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tyrie, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Viggers, Peter


Keetch, Paul
Walter, Robert


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Wardle, Charles


Kirkwood, Archy
Waterson, Nigel


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Webb, Steve


Lansley, Andrew
Wells, Bowen


Leigh, Edward
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Letwin, Oliver
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Lidington, David
Wilkinson, John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Willetts, David


Livsey, Richard
Willis, Phil


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Wilshire, David


Llwyd, Elfyn
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Loughton, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Luff, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


MacGregor, Rt Hon John



McIntosh, Miss Anne
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


McLoughlin, Patrick
Mr. Peter Atkinson.





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Darvill, Keith


Ainger, Nick
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davidson, Ian


Alexander, Douglas
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Allen, Graham
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)



Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dawson, Hilton


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Dean, Mrs Janet


Atkins, Charlotte
Denham, John


Austin, John
Dismore, Andrew


Banks, Tony
Dobbin, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Doran, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Dowd, Jim


Battle, John
Drew, David


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beard, Nigel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Efford, Clive


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Ennis, Jeff


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Etherington, Bill


Benton, Joe
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Berry, Roger
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Best, Harold
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Blackman, Liz
Flint, Caroline


Blears, Ms Hazel
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blizzard, Bob
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Borrow, David
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Galloway, George


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gardiner, Barry


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Browne, Desmond
Gerrard, Neil


Burden, Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burgon, Colin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Butler, Mrs Christine
Godman, Dr Norman A


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cann, Jamie
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grocott, Bruce


Chaytor, David
Grogan, John


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)



Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Healey, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clelland, David
Hepburn, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Heppell, John


Coaker, Vernon
Hesford, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cohen, Harry
Hill, Keith


Coleman, Iain
Hinchliffe, David


Colman, Tony
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corbett, Robin
Hoey, Kate


Corbyn, Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Corston, Jean
Hood, Jimmy


Cousins, Jim
Hope, Phil


Cox, Tom
Hopkins, Kelvin


Crausby, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Humble, Mrs Joan



Hurst, Alan


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hutton, John


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Iddon, Dr Brian


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Illsley, Eric






Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pearson, Ian


Jamieson, David
Pendry, Tom


Jenkins, Brian
Perham, Ms Linda


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kemp, Fraser
Primarolo, Dawn


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prosser, Gwyn


Khabra, Piara S
Purchase, Ken


Kidney, David
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quinn, Lawrie


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rammell, Bill


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rapson, Syd


Laxton, Bob
Raynsford, Nick


Lepper, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Leslie, Christopher
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Levitt, Tom
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooney, Terry


Linton, Martin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rowlands, Ted


Love, Andrew
Roy, Frank


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


McCabe, Steve
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Salter, Martin


Macdonald, Calum
Sarwar, Mohammad


McDonnell, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sawford, Phil


McIsaac, Shona
Sedgemore, Brian


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Shaw, Jonathan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Shipley, Ms Debra


MacShane, Denis
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Singh, Marsha


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert



Martlew, Eric
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Maxton, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Snape, Peter


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Merron, Gillian
Southworth, Ms Helen


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Miller, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


Moffatt, Laura
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morley, Elliot
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack



Stringer, Graham


Mountford, Kali
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mudie, George



Mullin, Chris
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Timms, Stephen


Norris, Dan
Tipping, Paddy


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Todd, Mark


O'Hara, Eddie
Touhig, Don


O'Neill, Martin
Trickett, Jon


Organ, Mrs Diana
Truswell, Paul





Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wills, Michael


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wilson, Brian


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Winnick, David


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wise, Audrey


Tynan, Bill
Wood, Mike


Vis, Dr Rudi
Woolas, Phil


Ward, Ms Claire
Worthington, Tony


Wareing, Robert N
Wray, James


Watts, David
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


White, Brian
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wyatt, Derek


Wicks, Malcolm



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to create high-quality, desirable, safe places to live without eating up the countryside; supports the Government's policies on protecting the Green Belt and believes the Government's inclusive and strategic approach to planning, housing, transport, countryside protection, welfare and economic policies will achieve more sustainable and equitable patterns of both urban and rural development; recognises that this Government is planning for economic success and that there is an opportunity to use growth to create better and more sustainable communities and improve the quality of life; welcomes the Government's move away from the previous 'predict and provide' approach to housing provision and the introduction of a 'plan, monitor and manage' policy; supports the Government's target of building 60 per cent. of all new housing on previously developed land; and welcomes the Government's determination to ensure that the whole country shares in the benefits of economic recovery.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 7th February, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions on any Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Darling relating to Social Security not later than Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION

That the draft African Development Bank (Further Subscription to Capital Stock) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 10th January, be approved.
That the draft International Development Association (Twelfth Replenishment) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 10th January, be approved.

MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT GUARANTEE AGENCY

That the draft Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (Further Subscription to Capital Stock) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 10th January, be approved.

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW

That the draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.

CINEMAS AND FILMS

That the draft Films (Modification of the Definition of "British Film") Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Question agreed to.

House of Commons Commission

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Sir Peter Lloyd be discharged from the House of Commons Commission and Mr. Eric Forth be appointed a member of the Commission under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Andrew Miller: I should like to remind the House of the words of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), spoken in the Chamber on 20 January this year. During the debate on the Braithwaite report he openly and honestly described his lack of understanding of the House of Commons Commission. He also described his views on how members should be appointed to it. His desires have clearly not been met, because he has been nominated through the usual channels. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There is far too much background noise. The House must come to order. I also remind hon. Members that the terms of the motion are very narrow indeed.

Mr. Miller: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst expressed concern about the process of appointment and proposed that a different process should be implemented. Clearly, it would be entirely wrong of me to speculate on what that process should be, as that would be outside the terms of the motion. However, if one looks at the duties that are undertaken by the House of Commons Commission as set out in the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, it is clear that it has some extremely important and rigorous functions. It is quite proper that the House should consider his suitability for the position by way of a formal interview.
It has been alleged in recent debates that the right hon. Gentleman was flying his own kite and acting out of control of his party Whips, but the prima facie evidence before the interview committee tonight is that that is not the case. Clearly, he would not have been nominated through the usual channels had he been acting outside the control of the Whips. So all the stories that we were told during that ridiculous all-nighter last week that the Whips were not in control of the situation must have been untrue.
I return to the functions of the House of Commons Commission. It is responsible for important functions in the House, not only in providing important services to hon. Members and the staff, but in ensuring that we are open and accountable to citizens.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Those of us who know my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) know full well that he is a vigorous defender of the rights of the House. That being so, will the hon. Gentleman tell us why he is not fit to be on the House of Commons Commission?

Mr. Miller: With the greatest of respect, I have not suggested that. I am just reminding the House that we are making an appointment to an extremely important body.

Mr. Eric Forth: indicated assent.

Mr. Miller: The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. Yet on 20 January 2000 he said:
However splendidly the Commission may work, I am not convinced—because I do not know enough about how it works—that that is in the forefront of its mind when it goes about the strategic planning that may or may not happen."—[Official Report, 20 January 2000; Vol.342, c.1079.]
As he acknowledged, he clearly does not understand and has not read the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will my hon. Friend also consider that, as there are so few appointments to this august body that adjudicates over so many important issues for us Back Benchers, its members must be representative of a large majority of hon. Members—and that can hardly be said of the individual whom we are discussing this evening?

Mr. Miller: I very much agree with the first point made by my hon. Friend—that the person should be representative of a wide range of Members. However, her second point will be tested by the interview process in which we are engaged. Given that the Commission—[Interruption.]

Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Miller: Of course.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I am a trifle perplexed by his use of the word "interview". In reference to these proceedings, is it customary, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for someone conducting an interview to do so by making a lengthy and rather tedious speech? [Laughter.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not conducting an interview.

Mr. Miller: Clearly, I must have been in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or you would have rapidly stopped me. Perhaps the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has had a word with my Whips, who from time to time accuse me of being long-winded, boring and tedious.

Hon. Members: Never.

Charlotte Atkins: In case my hon. Friend was about to become tedious, he might care to reflect on the fact that there are about four times as many Opposition Members in the Chamber for this debate as there were for the previous one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) has been in good order, but if he responds to that intervention he will be out of order.

Mr. Miller: I take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As for being long-winded and tedious, I must point out that this is the largest audience to which I have ever spoken in the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Miller: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward).

Ms Claire Ward (Watford): Does my hon. Friend agree that Members of the House who want to represent

Back Benchers on such an important Committee should have taken part in a considerable amount of debate, and should have ensured that they knew much about the subjects on which they will represent Back Benchers? That would include ensuring that they knew what the Commission exists to do.

Mr. Miller: That is precisely why I am making my speech. On his own admission, the right hon. Gentleman does not know what the task of the Commission is. There are plenty of Opposition Members who know precisely what it is, because they have read in detail the reports made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who speaks for the Commission. They have participated in debates such as the one that we held on the Braithwaite report on 20 January.
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We are dealing with an important issue—

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Miller: I want to finish my point.
We are discussing an important body, which deals not only with services to Members and with members of the House's staff, but with the public outside. People outside the House look on the quaint ways in which it works with some disdain. Indeed, it has sometimes been suggested that the practices engaged in by the right hon. Gentleman lead the public to have a certain disregard for the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Miller: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle).

Mr. Hoyle: I assure my hon. Friend that it is not just the Whips who think that he is tiresome and boring. Will he take up a relevant point and tell us what benefits the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) could bring to that most august body, the Commission? That is most important. Hon. Members seem eager to condemn the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to explain the benefits as he continues his speech.

Mr. Miller: I can think of a number of benefits that the right hon. Gentleman would bring—his wit, his humour and his snappy dressing, including his choice of ties. Whether they would benefit the House is another matter.

Mr. Tom Levitt: The question of how representative the right hon. Gentleman might be has been raised. His title shows that he is a member of the Privy Council, so he is therefore among the minority in the Chamber. Does my hon. Friend consider that the right hon. Gentleman's membership of the Privy Council is the closest that he has ever got to being "PC" in his life?

Mr. Miller: I see you move forward, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know that I would be straying dangerously


from the terms of the motion if I considered my hon. Friend's point. I shall resist the temptation to consider it now. I shall speak to him outside the Chamber.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If we have so many interventions immediately after one another, there will be no flow to the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Miller: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber).

Judy Mallaber: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the Commission has important functions in respect of the employment of staff, it would be incredibly helpful if, before the end of the debate, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) let us know what experience he has of staff employment practices? Would he be prepared to undertake equal opportunities training in terms of selection and recruitment and what is his attitude to an important issue that concerns many Members: child care facilities for Members and the staff employed by the House?

Mr. Miller: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I would not want to pursue the right hon. Gentleman too far along that line, because the public record shows that his views are extremely clear.
The functions of the Commission need to be considered with much care. As I said earlier, issues such as communication with the outside world are important. However, when we discussed the Braithwaite report on 20 January, there were interesting exchanges in which the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that he was out of his depth. Perhaps, in a year's time, after he has mugged up and read line by line the reports of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire—the right hon. Gentleman laughs but he has to read them—and developed a fuller understanding of the role of the Commission, the House should take a different view.
Innovations are important to the House. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley that child care is important as are the development of broadcasting, the development of Hansard on the web and the improvement of facilities for members of the public. I hope that I am not using an unparliamentary expression, but the signs are that the right hon. Gentleman is something of a luddite on such matters.

Mr. Brian White: Those of us who were present for the Braithwaite report debate heard the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) argue passionately for elections to bodies such as the Commission. Given those comments, is it not strange that he should allow his name to go forward in this way?

Mr. Miller: As I said earlier, I might stray out of the terms of the motion if I responded in too much detail to the alternative methods that could be pursued. However, it is on the public record that the right hon. Gentleman believes that the process of appointment on the nod—we are certainly not doing that tonight—is not an ideal mechanism. Appointments should be subject to detailed scrutiny.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a Member of independent mind is needed? Does he further agree that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is not only of independent mind but, unlike those on the green swathes opposite, he is not one of the Whips' apparatchiks? He will stand up for the rights of Parliament, and more importantly, he will stand up for nursing women employees of the House. [Interruption.]

Mr. Miller: I see that the right hon. Gentleman has appointed the hon. Gentleman his campaign manager—and a powerful speech he made too. The hon. Gentleman is wrong, of course, because he said that his right hon. Friend would stand up for Back Benchers. The right hon. Gentleman might stand up for the totally independent Members who have views that are out of touch with those of the majority in the House.

Mr. Fabricant: The Whips.

Mr. Miller: I do not know about the Whips. I have not seen any sign from them that I should shut up or do anything else, and I am not looking their way in case I get the wrong guidance.
The Commission should represent minority views, including those of minority parties. It is particularly important that the House take into account all the parties represented here.

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the cheering, the hon. Gentleman may have misheard me. I referred not to minority views of the House, but to independent views.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I see that the hon. Gentleman has not lost his touch.

Mr. Miller: I shall make my point to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) a little clearer. Minority parties must be properly represented by the Commission, and someone who is so independent-minded that he does not take into account the consensus that must be achieved to make the Commission work is inappropriate for this post.
It is possible that I am entirely wrong about the right hon. Gentleman, because the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), may over time have given him advice and guidance. Perhaps what we perceive as the actions of a man of independent mind are in fact those of the independent mind of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire. That puts paid to the observations of the hon. Member for Lichfield.

Ms Joan Ryan: Does my hon. Friend agree that whether or not the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is of independent mind, it is extremely important that someone who seeks to sit on a Commission with such an important role in employment in the House make a full and firm commitment to legislation on employment terms and conditions, in particular the national minimum wage?

Mr. Miller: I honestly do not know, off the top of my head, what is the right hon. Gentleman's view on the


national minimum wage, other than that he traipsed through the Lobby to vote against it. However, I would stray slightly from the motion if I developed that point.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the issues that members of staff face from time to time when the day's programme of business is so severely disrupted that it causes them domestic disruption, particularly if they are low paid or have a family. That point needs to be considered carefully.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Miller: I shall give way in a moment.
If the man of independent mind is independently causing that disruption, that is not a good reason for appointing him to the Commission.
Spurious debates that are dragged out for the hell of it by the right hon. Gentleman are costing the taxpayer a ridiculous sum of money. I have been probing the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire on the matter, although I must say that I have yet to get a satisfactory answer from him. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that was precisely his point at column 1079 on 20 January. So, we have a man who acknowledges that he does not understand the Commission's role and believes that taxpayers' interests should be taken into account, but who seems to be acting independently—or perhaps with the guidance of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, the Opposition Whip—in dragging out proceedings, which costs the House a lot of money.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: The right hon. Gentleman has very clear views on the issues of Europe. Bearing in mind that much of our employment legislation, such as that on the limit on working hours and parental leave, emanates from European directives, what assurances does my hon. Friend think the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would be able to give the House on his willingness and ability to act within the spirit as well as the letter of that legislation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) needs my help in recognising that that is a red herring.

Mr. Miller: I almost beat you to it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to say that I believed that my hon. Friend's intervention was outside the terms of the motion, although it was interesting speculation.

Mr. Martin Salter: There has been much talk of independence of mind. It is a tribute to the independence of mind of Labour Members that they are prepared to defy their Whip's order.
How does my hon. Friend square the House of Commons Commission's responsibility for the staff of the House and the fact that a number of our staff are from the Irish Republic with the description by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), a few days ago, of people from the Republic of Ireland as
aliens … from a … foreign country"?—[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 899.]
Is that an appropriate view?

Mr. Miller: On my hon. Friend's first point, I perhaps ought to seek your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker,

because I will not be threatened by anyone in the House over this debate—apart from your good self. I have not had a discussion on the matter with anyone currently sitting on the Treasury Bench.
My hon. Friend's second point is important to my observations about the need for the Commission to be representative of all interest groups in the House. Of course, there are people who take somewhat eccentric views by comparison with their party's norm, and their views must be accommodated. Some hon. Members represent very small minority interests. One of my near constituency neighbours, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), is his own Chief Whip and party leader. His views must be accommodated, too. However, I am not sure, given the kind of behaviour to which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) referred, that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is properly equipped to do the job.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: I feel that I must spring to the defence of the right hon. Gentleman, given my previous experience of him representing me. In judging whether he might be a suitable candidate for the Commission, the House might find the following information useful. Between 1985 and 1992, I lived in Redditch, where the right hon. Gentleman was my elected Member of Parliament. In many ways, he was an ideal representative of the Conservative party: we never saw him; we never had a leaflet or letter from him.

Mr. Miller: I fear that I shall have to pursue that point outside the Chamber, lest I suffer the wrath of the Deputy Speaker.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Miller: I give way to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I repeat the advice given earlier? This is not Question Time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be allowed to make some progress.

Mr. Miller: Were it Question Time and were I a Front Bencher, I would be considerably better prepared than I am now.

Dr. Nick Palmer: I, too, should like to defend the reputation of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). We know that he believes strongly that the House passes business far too quickly, without adequate debate and sometimes late at night. I suggest that the motion should be allowed to pass only when the Government have agreed to a full day's debate on the subject.

Mr. Miller: I do not think that I could keep the debate going for a full day. However, there is a serious underlying point: the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has himself raised the issue of the process of appointments, arguing that it is unsatisfactory. We are now trying to deal with his appointment, albeit in a muddled way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I accept that. Hon. Members from both


sides are asking probing questions, yet there has been no formal interview, selection process or hustings for an extremely important function.

Mr. Peter Bradley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Miller: No, I must make a little progress and end my remarks shortly, because other right hon. and hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
I shall draw my remarks together by referring again to the debate on Braithwaite, in which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst raised some important issues, but acknowledged that he knew nothing about them. The Braithwaite report referred to the process of management within the House of Commons and made several important recommendations. It strikes me, not only that the Commission should be composed of right hon. and hon. Members who not only understand the sensitivities of all the parties and interest groups represented in the House, but that candidates for a position should be people who can bring a certain expertise to the complex and varied functions of the Commission.
My concern is that the right hon. Gentleman did not know what the Commission does, so we do not know what expertise he can bring to it. We can read about what he has done and we have heard him make some interesting speeches in the past, but, at this time, the House has no knowledge as to whether or not he is an appropriate candidate for the Commission. I agree that the process in which we are engaged is unsatisfactory, but it is the best one we have.
I should now draw my speech to a close because others want to speak. Irrespective of the outcome, I genuinely hope that tonight's important debate will stimulate discussion within the Commission about the process of future appointments—[Interruption.] I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire acknowledge that point.

Mr. David Taylor: Before my hon. Friend concludes his remarks as to the suitability of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), will he refer to the terms of reference of the Commission, which include responsibility for the British-Irish interparliamentary body? In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on 19 January, will my hon. Friend emphasise that when we discuss people from the Republic of Ireland we are talking not about
aliens coming from a strange foreign country"—[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 899.]
but about people with local connections? Given the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, is my hon. Friend convinced that the right hon. Gentleman is an appropriate person to have such a responsibility? In addition, given the Commission's demanding timetable of 13 meetings a year, does the right hon. Gentleman have the time and energy to spare from persistent filibustering to fulfil such an arduous schedule?

Mr. Miller: I honestly do not know. I described earlier the qualities that I think the right hon. Gentleman has—his charm, his humour, his tie—[Interruption.] I do not

think his waistcoat is that charming. Beyond that, all we know about the right hon. Gentleman is that, from time to time, he tends to frustrate many of us late in the evening. Perhaps I am doing the same to him now.
As a result of this discussion, I want the Commission to consider whether we ought to review the process of appointment, and I want the House to determine, through this process of interview—which I am not allowed to call an interview—whether the right hon. Gentleman is suitable for that onerous task.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I want to focus the attention of the House on the fact that the motion is important, and that this is a House of Commons matter. It has nothing to do with the Whips or with party political advantage. A vacancy that exists on the Commission must be filled. That is crucial for the functioning of the House of Commons. We are therefore right to spend some time collectively considering the people who are nominated to fill such vacancies.
The debate is good fun, but the subject is important. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) made some good points. We must make sure that the matter remains a House of Commons matter and does not get into the hands of the usual channels and the Whips. I know; I have been there, and I know that there are better ways of dealing with it.
The debate this evening has stimulated some important questions. As a result, it is possible that, in the context of Braithwaite, the Commission will reflect on a mechanism that gives hon. Members a chance sensitively to select people in whom they have confidence. If that does not happen, the Commission cannot do the work that it is charged to do.
Let me clarify what the House of Commons Commission does and the responsibilities of the Commissioners. The Commission is a corporate body, set up, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978. It has six members. The Chair is the Speaker. The Leader of the House is a member of the Commission by statute, and the Leader of the official Opposition has the power to nominate a third member of the Commission.
There are three remaining positions. One of them is the one that we are discussing tonight. There is another vacancy, because the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) has been promoted. It is important that we fill the vacancies quickly and do so in good order.
Three Members are nominated by the House to serve on the Commission. It has two principal functions. Briefly stated, it has the duty to appoint all the members of staff in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. The number of staff, their remuneration and terms of service must be set down, considered and decided by the Commission.

Ms Ward: Does the hon. Gentleman not fear that, given the power of members of the Commission to appoint members of staff in the House, the right hon. Gentleman may discriminate by not wishing to favour anyone from the Irish Republic?

Mr. Kirkwood: That is a matter for each hon. Member. I have views on the suitability of the right hon. Member


for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but the decision is a matter for hon. Members. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was right to refer to the Braithwaite report, because the right hon. Gentleman made an important contribution to the debate on it. Anyone who is interested in determining his views through that report is entitled to do that.

Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether Commissioners receive training on their employment duties, employment law and good practice? We might want to bear the answer in mind when considering the suitability of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is a sensible question. We have no training, but we have access to the Board of Management, which comprises paid professionals, who are experts. If we believe that specific questions are not within our competence, we bring in consultants. The House of Commons Commission is responsible for providing appropriate terms and conditions for modern times. It is important that we set an example and get the best advice.

Mr. John Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The narrow motion applies purely to the fitness of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to serve on the Commission. It does not cover the Commission's functions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is in order for the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) to refer to the Commission's functions because there is an interplay between that and the suitability of the candidate. However, I hope that he will not go into too much detail because the motion is narrowly drafted.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am not wasting time. I am trying to sketch briefly the role of a Commissioner because I want to develop my view on the qualities that are necessary to do the job properly. I cannot do that unless I explain some of the responsibilities.
The Commission consists of six Commissioners. It is chaired by the Speaker and appointed for a Parliament.

Mr. Frank Roy: As a fellow Scot, who is aware of the criticism that Scots are over-represented in the House, and even in the Cabinet, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the appointment of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would exacerbate that?

Mr. Kirkwood: If I followed that line, I would be ruled out of order.
I am trying, with little success, to describe briefly the Commission's responsibilities. Commissioners work with the Board of Management.

Mr. Clive Efford: The hon. Gentleman takes a fatherly tone with the House. Perhaps he could explain exactly what we should expect from individuals who are appointed to the Commission.

Mr. Kirkwood: If people would leave me alone, I could try to do that. The six Commissioners are charged

with the responsibility of implementing best employment practice, working with consultants and being the best possible employer. That means being open, fair, efficient, and applying equal opportunities policy. The treatment of staff is a crucial element of Commissioners' work.
Another onerous responsibility is setting the votes and estimates that are to be placed before the House. They totalled £188 million in 1998–99. Commissioners must work them out with the various domestic committees and the Finance and Services Select Committee, ensuring that all the angles are covered and making proper provision for the expansion in services that we all support. Commissioners also consider staff salaries and Members' services.

Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kirkwood: For the last time.

Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman outlined some of the onerous duties of members of the Commission. I see from the last annual report that it met on 13 occasions in the year in question. How long did the average meeting last and how long would he expect the average meeting to last should the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) be appointed, bearing in mind his reputation for, I would not say filibustering, but a degree of prolixity?

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman should know that the Speaker is the Chair of the House of Commons Commission. If it comes to a contest between the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the Speaker about how long a meeting takes, I know who my money is on—every time.
I described the background and the sort of duties and overall responsibilities that the six of us have to discharge on the collective behalf of hon. Members. I think that it is important for me to share my experience of the past two years. To be a successful Commissioner, one has to understand that the Commission works best as a small, closely knit team. Team working is a crucial part of the operation. Also one needs to accept a fair amount of advice from professional advisers. Members of the Commission need to be able to trust one another implicitly. To work well, the Commission needs to proceed with almost a Quaker-like consensus. Diplomacy and understanding are important for effective service and a need to co-operate on an active and continuing basis would also help.
The timing of the vacancy is also important. Three extremely serious issues confront the Commission. One is the Braithwaite report, which gives us a chance to reconfigure and modernise the structure of the House of Commons. It is important that that process should not be delayed.
Secondly, Portcullis house has still to be commissioned. It is important that that public space, which has been the subject of some controversy, is put into the service of hon. Members and their constituents as soon as possible without any further delay.
Finally, I would gently advise hon. Members that they may not be aware that the Commission is involved in some detailed legal negotiations—in actions in the civil courts. Elements of commercial sensitivity are involved and the protection of the reputation of the House.

Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kirkwood: No, I am about to sit down.
Let us consider the importance of trying to develop a system in which hon. Members feel that the three Commissioners they nominate, one of whom is in front of us this evening, have the confidence of the whole House. This is not a party political matter. They require consensus from both sides of the House. The work is important and the House would be well advised to consider with great care all new nominations.

Angela Smith: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion and will try to be brief. I appreciate that many other hon. Members want to contribute.
I greatly appreciated the contribution made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), which helped to put the debate in context. I was shaken by some of the facial expressions of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Mr. David Taylor: They were all the same.

Angela Smith: I must correct my hon. Friend, as there were several expressions. Sometimes, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst seemed quite put out at the depth and breadth of the qualities needed.
It was helpful to be given an idea of the scope of the work and what the appointment is all about. All hon. Members will agree, I think, that any appointment to an important body needs widespread support from and the confidence of both sides of the House.
You may be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that during the debate on the Braithwaite report, it was said that hon. Members knew little if anything about the work of the Commission. I hope that tonight's debate will put those fears to rest. The contribution from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire should do so and I can see many copies of the report around the Chamber, so hon. Members have clearly done a great deal to remedy that position and ensure that they know a lot more about the work of the Commission. Those hon. Members who are relatively new to the House will have been surprised at the scope of the Commission's work and the fact that it was established in 1978.
In defence of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, it should be said that he has a reputation in the House for the forensic examination of legislation. That may be a quality that the Commission would find useful. His assiduous attendance on Fridays, particularly when the House considers private Members' Bills, will be known to many.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: With regard to the assiduous nature of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), when the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) defeated the right hon. Gentleman in a selection contest, the right hon. Gentleman decided not to hold any further surgeries in his constituency. Would such a person be suitable—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying too far from the motion.

Angela Smith: I can understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), but I

agree that that is not a matter for the House tonight when we are considering the qualities of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the work of the Commission.

Mr. David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that someone with a reputation for tedium, repetition and irrelevance would hardly be appropriate to represent the House in that important post on the Commission?

Angela Smith: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if any Member were guilty of those things, you would rule him or her out of order immediately. Those of us who sat through the debate on the Representation of the People Bill found it enjoyable and interesting.

Mr. White: The motion talks about not only the appointment of a new member to the Commission but the discharge of a current member. Does my hon. Friend accept that we should consider the reasons for discharging that person, the qualities that he has brought to the post, and whether he should not continue to do the excellent job that he is already doing?

Angela Smith: If hon. Members seek to divide the House, they will be able to make their own decision about who should be appointed to the Commission.
We should be addressing two points tonight. One is the role and scope of the Commission, and the other is whether hon. Members feel that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is the person whom they wish to represent their interests on the Commission.
Many hon. Members who have been involved in private Members' Bills have been impressed by the way in which, at every opportunity, the right hon. Gentleman, regardless of the time available and the merits of the legislation, has sought to examine such Bills in minute detail. I see the right hon. Gentleman nodding in agreement. It would be fair to say that some of us—perhaps not all—who have sat through many debates have been disappointed that legislation has been lost as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's interest in it. However, he has exercised his right to examine legislation in detail. I wonder if that is a quality that he wishes to bring to the Commission.
In reply to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred to Madam Speaker keeping the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in order. If Madam Speaker is not available, any member of the Commission can take the Chair. Hon. Members will wish to consider whether the right hon. Gentleman would be an appropriate person to take the Chair in that way.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): Does the hon. Lady believe that a Member who has been a highly successful and articulate Minister and is a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council is unsuitable to fulfil a position on the Commission of the House of Commons?

Angela Smith: I am rather surprised by that intervention. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would argue, in his customary style, that all support for any matter should be examined in detail. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a


Member of the House's suitability for another role should not be scrutinised because he has been a Minister, I find that surprising. However, I have yet to make up my mind and shall have to listen to the rest of the debate.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Smith: I want to finish this point—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but we must have calm in the House. The hon. Lady will decide whether to give way without assistance from anybody else.

Angela Smith: I am happy to give way.

Mr. Swayne: I want to assist the hon. Lady in making up her mind. She referred to the scrutiny exercised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but said earlier—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but Labour Members should behave themselves.

Mr. Swayne: The hon. Lady is disappointed that that scrutiny has cost a number of Bills that she wanted to progress, but that is as nothing compared with the number of private Members' Bills that her own Government have killed off in this Parliament.

Angela Smith: Unfortunately, none of the Labour Members to whom the hon. Gentleman refers are here tonight. If they were, I should still want to have exactly the same debate because Members of the House have the right to discuss this appointment in detail. The merits of other Members are irrelevant; we are discussing whether we want the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to represent us on the Commission. Forensic examination of legislation is one of his talents and it is right to consider that in the context of the Commission's role.

Ms Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that the presence of so many Conservative Members shows that they, too, believe that this is an important matter for the House to debate? Indeed, were attendance to be used to judge the issue, it might be considered more important than the health service, the green belt—which we discussed this evening—and many other issues.

Angela Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution, but she is at fault in suggesting that every Conservative Member supports the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and every Labour Member opposes him. We shall have to wait to find out whether that is the case.

Mr. Salter: There has been much talk about effective scrutiny. I urge my hon. Friend, if she has not already had the opportunity, to read the parliamentary profile of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. She will find that the candidate before us was an apologist for the

previous regime in South Africa and described the staff of a citizens advice bureau as a bunch of Trots. Is he suitable?

Angela Smith: Hon. Members will make up their own minds about that, but I return to the point that I have heard no complaint from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about the examination of his appointment. Given his reputation in the House, I am sure that he has none.
Time is short, so I move on to a couple of the Commission's functions on which hon. Members may want to reflect. Under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, the Commission may from time to time "increase or reduce" the number of House Departments, "allocate functions" to any other House Department or amalgamate or abolish House Departments. We need to hear whether the right hon. Gentleman has any plans along those lines. A number of hon. Members are greatly concerned about that and would want assurances before proceeding with his appointment.

Helen Jones: I understand that oversight of the Library, which is very important to us, is a duty of the Commission. My hon. Friend will be aware that some hon. Members have been debating whether the Library should stock fiction. Has she examined the views of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on that matter, in particular his knowledge of contemporary British fiction? Considering his lamentable record as an Education Minister, does she think he is a suitable person to oversee that Department?

Angela Smith: I have no knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman's reading habits, but I think the Conservatives might feel that one novelist in the party is quite enough.

Mr. Bill Rammell: I think that the novelist referred to by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) was expelled from the Conservative party today.

Angela Smith: I am grateful for the information, but I am sure that there are a number of other novelists. Sometimes, when we read Hansard, we could be forgiven for believing that some of it might come from "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".

Mr. Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Angela Smith: I will give way once more, but I want to make some progress.

Mr. Dismore: I note that one of the Commission's responsibilities is the Refreshment Department. My hon. Friend may know little about the reading habits of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but does she know anything about his eating habits? I for one would like the Refreshment Department to branch out into more adventurous cuisine, but does my hon. Friend think that the right hon. Gentleman's strong views on Europe may result in a much more traditional approach?

Angela Smith: Whatever the membership of the Commission, I am sure that hon. Members will wish to submit their dietary requirements. Personally, I would ask for more vegetarian food.
As we have heard, one of the Commission's principal roles is that of employer, and many of us are gravely concerned about the commitment of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to employment legislation. I would want an assurance that he will support the minimum wage in future. A number of us are concerned about the terms and conditions of employment and the salaries of some of the staff of the House, and I hope that the Commission will address itself to that, whatever its membership.

Mr. John Butterfill: Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that a prerequisite for appointment to the Commission is that one voted for the national minimum wage, and that anyone who voted against it should be excluded? Such a prerequisite would exclude most of the Conservative party. That may be the intention of the hon. Lady and others who have spoken, but it is not the way in which the Commission functions.

Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. I do not suggest that every member of the Commission would have to have voted for the national minimum wage, but once something is the law of the land I expect all hon. Members to uphold it. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that Members should work against the law of the land and try to break it. Indeed, it is a criminal offence not to abide by the legislation on the minimum wage.
Perhaps my greatest worry relates to paragraph 6(2) to schedule 1 of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, which states:
The Commission may determine its own procedure.
I feel that hon. Members have cause for concern, given the attitude of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to the procedures of the House, and his boast that he is determined to block legislation that is not given adequate scrutiny. Members of the Commission may want to reflect on how long they want their meetings to last. I would also want some assurances in regard to employment law. I should like to know that the right hon. Gentleman wished to meet representatives of the trade union movement representing the staff of the House to discuss matters.
The right hon. Gentleman's commitment to forensic examination of legislation does him credit. I am sure that he will agree that tonight's examination of appointments to the Commission is also important.
I want the regulations of the House to be fully upheld. In 1998, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I'm a deregulator; I'm against regulations on business.
I hope that he would not think that he was against regulations in the House, because that is one of the functions for which we exist. It is important that we have regulations to govern the way in which we work. Members should reflect carefully on the matters that are before them.

Mr. David Wilshire: It will come as a surprise to some right hon. and hon. Members and a disappointment to others, but as a great relief to you,

Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I say that I have not the slightest intention of detaining the House for more than a few moments.
These motions are usually not debated but, as it has been decided that this motion will be discussed, we should ensure that the entire motion is discussed. Whatever we may want to say or not say about the Member who is being proposed, we should not let the debate go by—[Interruption.] I am coming to what I want to say about my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). If the House is prepared to be serious, we should consider my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who has served the House and who has decided to relinquish his place on the Commission. It would be a pity if, during the debate, it was not made clear that it was our unanimous view that we should say thank you to my right hon. Friend.
I agree with some of the remarks of Labour Members. They have rightly said that to serve on the Commission is an onerous task. That being so, I am extremely grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is willing to take on the task and look after my interests. I wish him well.

Mr. Bill Rammell: I shall make a short contribution to the debate.
I sometimes chide some of my local government colleagues about the size of their interview panels. After this evening's experience, I shall be on exceedingly dodgy ground if I continue with that approach. I welcome the debate. Sometimes these appointments go by omission and without discussion. Given the importance of the role and function of the Commission and the qualities of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), appropriate or otherwise in terms of the appointment, it is important that we discuss the matter. I hope that our discussion will be welcomed by the right hon. Gentleman.
My experience in the House since 1 May 1997 is that whenever, for example, a money resolution is before the House for debate, more often than not it is the right hon. Gentleman who intervenes to demand that it should not be moved formally and should be debated in detail. He goes further than that and demands that those who are putting forward the proposition should justify and defend it. I hope that, before this short debate ends, he will seek to justify and support his appointment.

Mr. David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a risk, if he pursues the line that he is apparently intent on in laying compliments on the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, that there may not be sufficient in the House accommodation budget to widen the doors of the Chamber to enable the right hon. Gentleman and his ego to leave it at the end of the debate?

Mr. Rammell: I shall temper my remarks as I proceed.
We are discussing a hugely significant role. When the role and function of the Commission were discussed in the context of the Braithwaite report, an intervention by the right hon. Gentleman elicited the response that the Commission is responsible for spending nearly £3 million of taxpayers' money per year. We are talking not about a minor functionary but about one of six


Members who have significant responsibilities. It is a huge job. All of us recognise that we need improvements in the running and functioning of the House of Commons. It is within that context that we should judge the qualities, or otherwise, of the right hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members whom we put forward to serve on the Commission should recognise the need for change within the management of the House of Commons and show an interest in managing the House's affairs better.
I have nothing against the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I am sure that he has many fine qualities, which, unfortunately, I do not have time to go into.

Mr. John Cryer: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in a debate on procedure, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said on time limiting Back Bench speeches:
Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that another powerful reason in favour of the argument is that the restriction of speeches might discourage incoherent rambling and self-indulgent contributions and would encourage people to structure their speech in advance and produce a tight, taut argument?"—[Official Report, 31 October 1984; Vol. 65, c. 1344.]
In view of what happened last Tuesday evening, does my hon. Friend think that consistency of argument is one of the right hon. Gentleman's strong points?

Mr. Rammell: That is a valid point. I welcome within the House and, indeed, within the management of the House, constructive and engaged opposition, but to do the job effectively, hon. Members need tolerance and self-restraint. That is one of the qualities that is often lacking in the contributions of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: In the context of the debate last Tuesday, I wonder whether it is not a particularly unfortunate time to discuss the matter. Members will remember that the Leader of the Opposition and his Whips lost control of their party, desperately pleaded to the Prime Minister for help—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the motion.

Mr. Rammell: I am happy to take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As I have said, I have nothing against the right hon. Gentleman. However, I am sure that not even his closest friends, or members of his family, would say that he recognises the need for change in the management of the House of Commons and the fact that things need to function more effectively. After all, he is the candidate for the status quo. During the debate on 20 January, he said that he was depressed that the Braithwaite report had said that
the status quo is not an option.
Given the need for change in this place, I hardly think that we should put forward someone who is in favour of the status quo: of things continuing as they always have. That has been a consistent feature of the right hon. Gentleman's parliamentary career.
We need people who understand the functioning of the House of Commons Commission. By his own admission, the right hon. Gentleman does not possess that experience. Perhaps in the 13 days since he made that statement, he

has undertaken a lot of homework. It is true that, occasionally, we need novices and people who bring new ideas and new experiences, but, for something as significant as the functioning of the House of Commons, it would be dangerous to put forward someone who, by his own admission, does not have that level of understanding and experience
There is inconsistency in the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. We have heard that, in that debate, he called for elections, manifestos and hustings, so that people could put forward their views about the changes that were necessary in the House of Commons, yet, only 13 days later, the intention was to move the motion deep in the night, wholly unremarked, with his appointment, which is based on patronage, slipped through. That inconsistency needs to be challenged.
Conservative Members have argued for minority representation. In that long night last Tuesday, or Wednesday, the largest number of Opposition Members I remember voting was 16 or 17. Larger minority groupings than that on the Opposition Benches are worthy of representation.
Other hon. Members have already very effectively made the point on the role played by Commissioners in complying with employment legislation. Although I do not think that anyone would argue that one should have to have voted for the minimum wage to sit on the Commission, in every debate in which I have heard the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst speak, he has consistently opposed regulation and good employment practice. I am simply not convinced that those are the qualities that we should be looking for when appointing an hon. Member to the Commission.

Mr. Jim Murphy (Eastwood): I speak with hesitation, as I am in hopeful anticipation that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will aid my campaign in my constituency at the next general election. Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend believe that the right hon. Gentleman—who previously criticised wages councils for setting the minimum wage at £2.33—is a suitable candidate for a position in which he would be responsible for the employment and salaries of many low-paid people in the House?

Mr. Rammell: My hon. Friend makes that point very effectively, on one of the central concerns of Labour Members about the proposed appointment.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rammell: I shall very briefly give way, but hope that, after it, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst himself will intervene.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many of those who work in the House and for all of us are subject to the minimum wage legislation?

Mr. Rammell: All staff in the House are subject to the minimum wage legislation. However, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) was plucking out that specific example to show that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has a


discernible track record of opposing decent employment protection, which raises questions about his suitability to take on the post and responsibility.
All the facts that I and other hon. Members have provided militate in favour of a judgment that the right hon. Gentleman is unsuited to the position for which he is being proposed. One therefore has to ask why the Conservative Whips have proposed him for the position. I think that it is one of those old management, or Whip, judgments: it is better to have him on the inside with parts of his anatomy projecting outwards than the other way round. Although that might speak volumes for management style in the Conservative party, it should not influence our decision today.
The bottom line is that, in politics and government, it is a case of horses for courses. I am not quite sure what type of horse the right hon. Gentleman is, but I am absolutely certain that appointment to the House of Commons Commission is not, and should not be, his course.
I shall finish on a more serious note. When members of the public observe our proceedings in the Chamber, they are often concerned that we are still operating like a 19th century old gentlemen's club, rather than as a modern legislature that is trying to meet the needs and aspirations of people living in the 21st century. I am simply not sure that, with the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman, we shall be facing up to the needs and challenges of the 21st century.

Mr. Dismore: In the most recent report of the House of Commons Commission, in the section on the responsibilities of the Serjeant at Arms, it states that the number of visitors to the Gallery had increased by more than 188,000. Does my hon. Friend think that that is a very welcome trend? Does he also agree that the activities and behaviour in the Chamber of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst have probably had an entirely opposite effect on the trend, so that next year's report may well show a decline in visitors?

Mr. Rammell: That point is very powerfully made.
I am simply making the point that we need to be a modern and effective legislature. We need to manage our affairs in the House of Commons effectively. I am not convinced that the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman would move us in that direction.

Mr. Edward Leigh: We have had some fun tonight and there is no harm in that. For what it is worth, over the years I have found many of the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) infuriating. We disagree on many of the social issues that I find most important, such as divorce and abortion. His views on those subjects may well be closer to those of many Labour Members.
Labour has a large majority in the House. If Labour Members wish to vote down my right hon. Friend they certainly have the power to do so, but I wonder whether they want to send out the message that they are prepared to use their majority to vote down somebody simply because he is a member of the awkward squad, because

he is a dedicated parliamentarian, because he does not do what the Whips tell him and because his views are not always those of the majority of Members of Parliament. Surely the Commission has to represent all points of view. Regardless of whether we agree with him, my right hon. Friend is entitled to his point of view.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am glad to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). My reasons for opposing the appointment have nothing to do with the general political views of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I do not regard this as an opportunity to take revenge for sleepless nights. I believe that the House has a responsibility to treat appointments to the Commission very seriously, as it has traditionally done. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) for his contribution and the seriousness with which he has taken his role. The same is true of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), whom we shall also have to replace shortly. I hope that the Labour Members responsible for nominating his successor will take into account some of the points that have been made during this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) referred to the very expressive face of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Conservative Members have probably not noticed which issues have provoked the most expressive responses. Some of those issues are serious and relate to the responsibilities of the House of Commons Commission. The first issue to provoke a force 10 "God how ghastly" face was when someone referred to the Commission's responsibilities for child care in the House. One of the Government's most serious failures is that, although we have created new child care places throughout the country—

Mr. St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this speech still in order? Is it still about the qualifications of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly in order.

Fiona Mactaggart: We have created extra child care places throughout the country, but we have failed to do so for the children of employees in the House and in Whitehall.

Mr. Owen Paterson: If the hon. Lady bothers to turn to page 9 of the report of the House of Commons Commission, she will see that the first report of the Administration Committee on child care facilities in the House concluded that 79 per cent. of respondents to a questionnaire were generally satisfied with the existing provision.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman obviously takes an interest in these matters, so he will know that the existing provision is a voucher scheme. If someone who cared about and understood child care issues was a


member of the Commission—and I advise the House to appoint such a person—the questionnaire would not have been put out in that form.

Mr. Wilshire: So the hon. Lady would design it to get the answer that she wanted, would she?

Fiona Mactaggart: I would have preferred a questionnaire that was a more accurate test of the opinions of the people who need child care provision.
Child care is the first issue that makes the right hon. Gentleman roll his eyes up to the heavens.

Ms Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that because child care is such an important issue for Members of Parliament, we shall want the Commission to return to it at some point? It is clear that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would have no intention of ensuring that it returned to the issue if he became a member.

Fiona Mactaggart: It is clear from the right hon. Gentleman's face not only that he would not want the Commission to return to the issue, but that he thought it stupid and irrelevant.
The second issue that made the right hon. Gentleman's eyes do the force-10 roll was when someone talked about consensus and the important role of the Commission in building consensus among right hon. and hon. Members about how the House is run. [Interruption.] He is doing it again, so I am clearly right in my analysis. It is important for us to work together, but not in a party political way.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be interested to know that in April 1998, along with the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)
forced a late night vote, making Labour MPs troop through the voting lobbies while Tory MPs nipped to the front of the Westminster taxi queue.
Does that strike my hon. Friend as an example of consensus?

Fiona Mactaggart: I do not want to spend any more time on the record of the right hon. Gentleman. I want to focus on what the House of Commons Commission should do. If its real job is ensuring good order and good management of the House, it needs to command the respect of the whole House. That has nothing to do with party politics. It is certain that many right hon. and hon. Members have real respect for the work that the right hon. Member for Fareham has done. It is not a party political issue, but involves working in a way that can command the consensus and respect of the House.
The third lemon was when people started talking about change and modernisation. The latter word usually produces a kind of huff-puff noise from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
My biggest shock on entering the House was the 19th century way in which we go about much of our business. I know that the House of Commons Commission has tried to modernise certain things and that its members are sometimes frustrated by the pace of change. If we

were to appoint to the Commission another member who is committed to slowing the pace of change, we would do the House and the country a disservice. For that reason I find the lack of judgment shown by those responsible for putting forward the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst surprising. It shows a lack of care for the importance of the job; therefore we should throw out their nomination.

Dr. Julian Lewis: The speech by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) sums up the way in which it is possible for a Labour Back Bencher completely to misread the mood of the House. Until she spoke, Conservative Members rather appreciated the irony, wit and good humour of Labour Members giving my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) what I am sure he would be the first to acknowledge is a taste of his own medicine. Instead of their wit, style and grace, she indulged in sour, humourless whingeing.
My right hon. Friend does not even have to open his mouth in a debate, as the hon. Lady attempts to interpret every twitch of an eyebrow and every flicker of expression. She is slightly living in a time warp—something of which I have occasionally been accused. She reminds me of those Kremlinologists who used to try to determine what was about to emanate from Moscow by judging the expressions of Brezhnev and Chernenko on the podium.

Mr. Peter Bradley: I am indebted to Andrew Roth's biography of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I am sure that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) will be fascinated to learn that, while at school, the right hon. Gentleman was a communist. [Laughter.]

Mr. Forth: indicated assent.

Mr. Bradley: Does the hon. Member for New Forest, East agree that once a red, always a red and will he be joining us in the Lobby tonight?

Dr. Lewis: I am delighted to have that piece of information. It only goes to show that, in order to rectify the terrible mistake of his youth, my right hon. Friend will need to go much further to the right than he has already done.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that one pre-eminent qualification of my right hon. Friend for the appointment is that, unlike the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), he did not have a charisma bypass operation at birth? [Interruption.]

Dr. Lewis: I disagree with my hon. Friend only in that he takes for granted the outcome of the nature versus nurture argument. The operation may not have occurred at birth; it might have been when she realised that she was an inheritor of a great deal of money. That is always very embarrassing—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is going downhill. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman return to the main point.

Dr. Lewis: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I greatly regret the downhill contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), which distracted me from the straight and narrow.

Ms Ward: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his support for his right hon. Friend—as may many of his colleagues—when they realise that, according to Andrew Roth, he campaigned for the entry of the UK to the European Community.

Mr. Forth: indicated assent.

Dr. Lewis: I am indebted to the hon. Lady for pointing out that fact. I was not aware of it. I might seriously reconsider my support for my right hon. Friend, but for the fact that he still has time to make good that deficiency.
In conclusion, I make two serious points. The first is that, if my right hon. Friend does such a great disservice to the House as is alleged, why has he been selected as one of the final four in the competition for Opposition politician of the year? I am sure that that will be acknowledged on both sides of the House. [Interruption.]
The Government—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16(1).

The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 108.

Division No. 61]
[11.43 pm


AYES


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Green, Damian


Beggs, Roy
Greenway, John


Bercow, John
Grieve, Dominic


Blunt, Crispin
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Boswell, Tim
Hawkins, Nick


Brady, Graham
Hayes, John


Brazier, Julian
Heald, Oliver


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Browning, Mrs Angela
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Burns, Simon
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Butterfill, John
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cash, William
Jenkin, Bernard


Chope, Christopher
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clappison, James
Lansley, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward


Clwyd, Ann
Letwin, Oliver


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cran, James
Lidington, David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Loughton, Tim


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Luff, Peter


Day, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Madel, Sir David


Duncan, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Duncan Smith, Iain
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Paice, James


Fabricant, Michael
Paterson, Owen


Flight, Howard
Pickles, Eric


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Pound, Stephen


Fraser, Christopher
Prior, David


Gibb, Nick
Randall, John


Gill, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Robertson, Laurence


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Ross, William (E Lond'y)





Ruffley, David
Viggers, Peter


St Aubyn, Nick
Wardle, Charles


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Whittingdale, John


Spicer, Sir Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spring, Richard
Wilshire, David


Swayne, Desmond
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Syms, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Townend, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tredinnick, David
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Trend, Michael
Mr. Peter Atkinson.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Alexander, Douglas
Kirkwood, Archy


Allan, Richard
Laxton, Bob


Atkins, Charlotte
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Ballard, Jackie
Linton, Martin


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Mactaggart, Fiona


Blackman, Liz
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Blears, Ms Hazel
Mallaber, Judy


Borrow, David
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Merron, Gillian


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Miller, Andrew


Browne, Desmond
Moffatt, Laura


Burgon, Colin
Moore, Michael


Cann, Jamie
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Casale, Roger
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Clapham, Michael
O'Neill, Martin


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Corston, Jean
Pearson, Ian


Cotter, Brian
Pickthall, Colin


Cox, Tom
Pike, Peter L


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Plaskitt, James


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Davidson, Ian
Prosser, Gwyn


Dawson, Hilton
Quinn, Lawrie


Dean, Mrs Janet
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Dismore, Andrew
Rendel, David


Dobbin, Jim
Roy, Frank


Drew, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Efford, Clive
Ryan, Ms Joan



Sanders, Adrian


Ennis, Jeff
Savidge Malcolm


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Sawford Phil


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Skinner, Dennis


Gerrard, Neil
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Stinchcombe, Paul


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Stunell, Andrew


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Harris, Dr Evan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Healey, John
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Hepburn, Stephen
Tyler, Paul


Heppell, John
Ward, Ms Claire


Hesford, Stephen
Watts, David


Hope, Phil
Webb, Steve


Hoyle, Lindsay
White, Brian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Willis, Phil


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Wise, Audrey


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Wood, Mike



Woolas, Phil


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Keeble, Ms Sally



Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Tellers for the Noes:


Keetch, Paul
Angela Smith and


Kilfoyle, Peter
Mr. Bill Rammell.

Question accordingly negatived.

Sir George Young: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government


have just lost a Division on a motion in the name of a Minister. Will Government Front Benchers be tabling a motion to rescind the decision of the House?

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be well aware that this is a matter for the House. It has been consistently so over many years; the precedent is well known. The House has made its decision.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that the House would benefit from prolonged discussion of the matter. Neither the business of the House nor how right hon. and hon. Members vote is a matter of order for the Chair. There is nothing further that I can add on the issue.

Mr. Butterfill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have been debating extensively a Government motion, yet it is clear that the Government did not vote for it. Is that not an abuse of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already ruled that how right hon. and hon. Members vote is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not extraordinary that the proposer of the motion neither spoke, moved or voted on it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The will of the House has been expressed. In the light of the particular circumstances in which we have found ourselves, would it be appropriate, through you, to invite the House of Commons Commission to make fresh proposals on how the job should be fulfilled?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a question on which I can rule. Tonight's proceedings will be studied and I have no doubt appropriate action will be forthcoming.

PETITIONS

Liane Singleton

Mr. Phil Woolas: I should like to present a petition, on which there are 8,000 signatures, on behalf of Mr. Gordon and Mrs. Jaqueline Singleton, which states:
For the brutal murder and dismemberment of Liane Singleton, aged eighteen years, a life sentence should mean life and not a minimum of fifteen years for murderer Paul Stowers who will be young enough to do it again.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons asks the Secretary of State for the Home Office to look specifically at this case, with a view to ensuring that Paul Stowers serves the whole of the life sentence imposed upon him for his heinous crime.
The petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Television Licences

Mr. Bob Blizzard: On behalf of the Lowestoft branch of the Suffolk Pensioners Association, whose members believe that the cost of a television licence is high in relation to the value of the state pension, I wish to present a petition bearing 2,000 signatures. The petition was started before the Government announcement of free television licences for the over-75s. The original demand, for half-price television licences for all pensioners, has been modified. The petition states:
To the House of Commons.
The Petition of the Suffolk Pensioners Association
Declares that the TV licence has now been increased to over £100 p.a. In view of the below subsistence level of the old age pension, the Association, on behalf of all pensioners, believe they are entitled to a reduced licence fee of 50%
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider reducing the TV licence fee to £50 for all pensioners who will not receive a free licence under the government's current proposals.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Cattle Welfare (East Anglia)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

12 midnight

Mr. Eric Pickles: The subject of this debate is of importance to my constituents and to the whole of East Anglia. The over-30-months slaughter scheme was introduced to cull cattle and so to deal with the BSE problem and to take those cattle out of the human food chain. Since then, in a renewal of contracts, the Intervention Board has caused East Anglia to lose all its slaughterhouse facilities under the scheme. The net results are longer journeys for cattle within East Anglia and a considerable financial burden placed on East Anglia's farmers.
In many ways, tonight's debate is a continuation of one that was held before Christmas in Westminster Hall, which was about problems in the west country. However, the problem in East Anglia is quite different. East Anglia is unique in that there is almost no infrastructure for cattle distribution. Of 170 markets in the country, there are now only two in East Anglia that are capable of dealing with such a large geographical area. In previous debates, Ministers have been keen to stress the network of markets that would be available to deal with the problem, but that argument obviously does not apply in East Anglia, with its limited facilities.
On 20 January, I presented a petition of 1,450 signatures protesting against the decision to remove the right of Cheale Meats to perform a necessary service. It is interesting to note that the petition was signed not by members of the general public, but by farmers from all over East Anglia. Given the number of dairy farmers in the region, the number of signatures represents almost all of them. Farmers are rightly upset by the loss of facilities. They are even more concerned by rumours circulating that the casualty slaughtering facility in Cambridge is to be lost, leaving East Anglia without both an OTMS slaughterhouse and a casualty slaughterhouse.
In a written reply, the Minister told me that there were relatively few cattle in East Anglia, which is why the region was lumped in with south-east England. However, it is clear that the Intervention Board put geography second in its consideration of the matters within its remit. A look at a map clearly shows how difficult the issue of journey times is in East Anglia. In another written reply, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told me:
As a result of the changes being introduced following the tender, some journey times will, inevitably, increase, but in no case will the journey times exceed those laid down by animal welfare guidelines. Some journey times will decrease."—[Official Report, 25 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 183W.]

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation that he describes is mirrored in Devon, where there is no slaughterhouse left operating under the over-30-months scheme? Does he agree that the Agriculture Minister would be better employed addressing that problem, considering issuing a challenge under

article 30, and introducing honesty in labelling, instead of wringing his hands and pretending that he cannot do anything?

Mr. Pickles: I intervened in my hon. Friend's debate, and I was struck by the gravity of the situation in the west country. I know that my hon. Friend is pursuing the matter vigorously.
Some journey times will be reduced—16 per cent.—but 84 per cent. of farmers in East Anglia will face longer journey times when they take their cows to be slaughtered. That means extra effort for them and extra stress and discomfort for animals at the end of their natural lifespan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who has been extremely helpful, said recently, it is a matter of humanity rather than of cost.
We have figures showing that if a farmer takes his cow from Yarmouth directly to the designated abattoir in Chesterfield, that is a journey of 157 miles. If he takes the cow from Stevenage to Colchester, then on to an abattoir in Kent, that is 165 miles. The journey from Cambridge is 201 miles and from King's Lynn 181 miles.
In the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), the Minister said:
I have asked the Intervention Board about the 130-mile figure—the figure of 160 miles was cited in one press release. I do not believe that a journey of 130 miles will be involved."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 21 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 173WH.]
However, it is clear that journeys of well over 160 miles will be commonplace in East Anglia.
It is not surprising that Mr. Barney Kay, the livestock adviser to the National Farmers Union's East Anglia region, commented:
A cow that is delivered in the morning to Colchester will be sent down to the abattoir in Kent by the evening, where it may have to wait overnight to be slaughtered the next day. For an old dairy cow this is a protracted and uncomfortable process.
That is, perhaps, a nice way of putting it. For many cows, it will be a frightening, painful and confusing experience. It will be the first—and last—journey of their life. They were born on the farm and they are part of a herd.
In all my dealings with farmers, I have been struck by how deeply worried they are about their animals' welfare. I have received many letters on the subject, but let one letter speak for them all. It is from Mrs. Helen Hall of The Orchards, who is a farmer in my constituency. She writes that she has a small suckler herd of red poll cattle. She wants their last journey to be as unstressful as possible. She said:
All my cattle now have been born on the farm, live in a family group and only travel to new pasture in the summer. A long journey by lorry whether to Derby or Kent is not a pleasant thought … how many times has one been stuck in traffic jams on the M25 or at the Dartford crossing, let alone on the Ashford road. Think of the poor cattle on hot summer days stuck in an unfamiliar lorry without their herd.
That point should be borne in mind.
The Intervention Board's disposal of public money does not inspire confidence. It has awarded contracts to organisations that were not running abattoirs. It awarded a contract to a slaughterhouse in Kent, which, in the words of the Eastern Daily Press is
closer to the Dutch coast than to farmers in remote broadlands.
The Scottish Farmer reported that it awarded contracts to a company in Kilmarnock that was in deep financial trouble. The Intervention Board did not even undertake a basic credit check before awarding the contract.
In a written reply on 24 January, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), said that while a credit check was undertaken on those companies with which the Intervention Board had no dealings,
similar reports were not sought in respect of companies with whom IB already had a satisfactory and long-standing contractual relationships"—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 9W.]
Is that the way in which the Government go about awarding contracts? I could not believe it, so I sought answers from various Departments to ascertain whether it was the Government's practice not to undertake a credit check on companies. I am pleased to say that the circumstances that we are considering seem to be exceptional.
Today, I received a reply from the Treasury. I asked the Chancellor whether the credit rating of companies that tendered for services provided by the Treasury was checked before contracts were awarded. The reply stated:
Treasury decisions on an individual bidding company's financial standing take account of the latest available audited and interim accounts and any other relevant published information including credit and debt rating.
The Treasury carries out a credit check on companies if it has any worries about them even after the contract has been awarded.
The Intervention Board's actions are truly astonishing. I have a report on the credit rating of a company—not the Scottish company—that I shall not name because I do not want to add to its financial troubles. Its condition was described as poor; it showed "significant levels of risk". The report recommended that
before extending credit, suppliers seek suitable assurances and guarantees.
Yet the Intervention Board did not bother to carry out the most basic checks. The board's financial checking speaks volumes about the way in which they undertake the whole process.
The Intervention Board makes a spurious claim that £5 million has been saved by the process. That figure can be reached only by comparing the old contract price with the new contract price. If one examines the new tendering procedures in which all the companies bid, the figure of £5 million begins to evaporate. We are considering a significant transfer of costs. If all East Anglian farmers decide to send their cattle along the Intervention Board's preferred routes, through the two markets, an extra £1 million will be added to the cost of their haulage.
Let us consider welfare, and the extra time that will be involved in transportation. Eight hours is the permitted time, and extensions are available. If we assume a minimum turn-around time of two and a half hours for identification, live weighing and reloading, travel to Stevenage will mean a total of eight hours, travel to Cambridge will mean nearly nine hours and travel to Aylesbury will mean eight and a half hours.

Angela Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pickles: I shall give way gladly because the hon. Lady has been most helpful in the campaign, and shares many of my worries.

Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman and I have spoken to farmers meetings in our adjoining constituencies.

It may not be apparent why a representative of Basildon is interested in farming. However, several farms in my constituency are affected, and 30 per cent. of the work force of Cheale's, which may soon lay off staff, are from my constituency.
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's point about animal welfare. When the Minister responds, will she deal with the fact that journey times for animals going to slaughter will increase? Surely, we should slaughter animals as near to the point of production as possible, rather than extend the journey time.

Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady is right. I recognise that her constituency interest—the work force at Cheale Meat—is important. Initially, like me, she became interested in the matter because of the company and its work force, but it has rapidly become clear that the issue is really animal welfare.
The Prime Minister said yesterday:
We need a new direction for farming to meet the present day challenge.
The most pressing present day challenge for farmers in East Anglia is longer journey times and the extra suffering caused to their cattle. The dilatory and incompetent Intervention Board is causing those farmers great grief.
We do not blame the Minister—we do not believe that she has been a party to these bad decisions—but there comes a time when we must join the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has said that we must reconsider and reopen the tenders because to stick with the existing situation is to condemn cattle.
These cattle are near the end of their natural lifespan and many of them are milkers. They need to be milked on such a long journey, but they will not be. They will be very frightened. As we enter the first year of this new century, I do not believe that that is any way to treat cattle.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on securing this debate. I know that he has been active on the issue. Indeed, as he said, he has tabled a number of written questions on the subject. He intervened briefly in the previous debate on the subject before Christmas and he has also presented a petition on it. Other hon. Members and hon. Friends have also expressed concern about the situation in their areas. Indeed, I have had a number of meetings with Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), to discuss the situation.
The debate is entitled, "Cattle Welfare (East Anglia)", although it could just as easily have been entitled, "Changes to the over-30-month scheme and the loss of contracts in abattoirs"—in this case, the Cheale Meat abattoir in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar.
A number of animal welfare concerns have been raised, as have other concerns associated with employment, geographical distribution and so forth. Many of those matters were mentioned in the earlier debate.
The hon. Gentleman was right to point out that the changes in the number and location of over-30-month-scheme abattoirs stem from a competitive tender


held by the Intervention Board at the end of last year. The new arrangements were introduced on 4 January and I am pleased to have this further opportunity to discuss their operation in the light of practical experience of the new contracts so far.
Obviously, I recognise—I have never tried to disguise it—that the reduction in the number of contracted abattoirs is an important and sensitive issue for farmers and for animal welfare. I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that I have watched closely the operation of the new arrangements so far, have asked for regular reports from the Intervention Board and have had a number of meetings.
Many of the concerns that were predicted by hon. Members, such as long waiting lists and inadequate access, have not materialised, and, in many respects, the new arrangements are settling in well. However, I assure hon. Members, and the hon. Gentleman in particular, that, as I have said in the past, I am committed to monitoring the situation, and, if it appears not to be working, I shall reconsider it. It will be kept under close review.

Mr. Pickles: I, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) and other hon. Members are keen to meet the Minister with a group of farmers to discuss the problem. Is she minded to meet us in the reasonably near future?

Ms Quin: In principle, I am certainly sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's request. I have met farmers around the country, including in my own area. I should point out that one of the abattoirs that lost a contract was in my constituency, which rather gives the lie to some of the criticisms in the south-west press which suggested that somehow or other I was personally completely immune to the process. That is not so. For such reasons, I have considered closely what the Intervention Board has done, but I believe that it has acted properly in the negotiation of the tendering process.
Arrangements before this tender round dated back to 1997. As is common practice, they were reviewed to ensure that they represented good value and continued to meet the need. As I said in the earlier debate, as a Minister I have to respond to the Public Accounts Committee, which, as the hon. Gentleman may know, has in the past been critical of the high rates paid to OTMS abattoirs. The Public Accounts Committee's report previously marked the service out as one which required close attention by officials, and I need to respond to such concerns. Following the expression of those concerns, the Intervention Board rightly recommended to UK Agriculture Ministers that the slaughtering contract should be re-tendered.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with colleagues in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, carefully considered the board's advice and accepted its recommendation. The tender process was started last August and concluded with the announcement of the award of contracts at the end of last year.
I stress that tenders were evaluated against published objective criteria and final decisions were taken by a project board, comprising representatives of the Intervention Board, the four Agriculture Departments and

expert bodies such as the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Meat Hygiene Service. It is important to stress that, because so often, in the earlier debate and this debate, statements have been made as if the Intervention Board is somehow acting in a vacuum and is not involved with other interested bodies with a real interest in seeing that the service works well.
I have examined in detail the way in which the tender process has been handled, and, the evidence that I have—I am always willing to look at evidence—shows that it has been conducted professionally and impartially, in a way which will stand up to scrutiny, which may well come about through bodies such as the Audit Commission and the PAC, which have already scrutinised the processes in the past. It is true that the tender has resulted in further efficiencies, but that has not been at the expense of animal welfare considerations or quality of service.
The hon. Gentleman understandably spoke a great deal about the welfare of animals going for slaughter. I accept that fewer abattoirs have been contracted, but capacity is broadly the same. Furthermore, tenders were considered geographically to provide sufficient capacity to ensure that animal welfare is not compromised. Clearly there is a balance to strike between the number of contracted abattoirs and the efficiency of the operation. The hon. Gentleman referred to my written answer. Numbers are lower in East Anglia compared with the south-west, the midlands and parts of the north of England. Although some animals face a longer journey time to the point of slaughter, many face a shorter journey.

Mr. Pickles: The right hon. Lady must recognise that 84 per cent. of farmers taking animals to slaughter face longer journey times. Surely she cannot be saying that journeys of 160, 180 or 200 miles are acceptable?

Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman refers to journeys of 200 miles, but I do not know where that figure comes from. The abattoir in his constituency regularly took cattle not only from Sussex and Kent, but the Thames valley and even Wiltshire. Animals will now travel shorter distances to slaughter and there is sufficient capacity in each area of the United Kingdom to deal with animals that come forward. Obliging animals to undertake lengthy journeys is the last thing I would want and in theory we look for a limit of eight hours. In practice, very few journeys get remotely near that.
This is not simply a matter of distance as the conditions in which animals are transported are also relevant. A brief journey in appalling conditions can be more stressful than a somewhat longer one in better vehicles. Many aspects of animal welfare such as vehicle type, vibration, noise, movement, temperature and humidity, space and separation, food and rest, animal handling and loading and unloading were not referred to by the hon. Gentleman or other hon. Members. All those issues are vital, which is why I commend the work done by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in co-operation—

Mr. Pickles: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ms Quin: I have only two minutes.

Mr. Pickles: May I make a brief point?

Ms Quin: I give way, but if we run out of time I shall be accused of not addressing the issues in full and I should be sorry about that.

Mr. Pickles: That accusation will not be made by me. The Minister did not mention the age of the animal involved. Does she agree that that is rather important?

Ms Quin: I certainly agree, but the age of an animal is also important in relation to the different types of conditions of transport. We want to ensure that older animals are carried in conditions that are as satisfactory as possible. The Government have been working actively with organisations such as the Humane Slaughter Association precisely to tackle some of those animal welfare issues. Overall, animals travel shorter distances than they did a few years ago. The whole thrust of Government policy on animal transit—not only for

over-30-month animals, but generally—is going in entirely the right direction and I pay tribute to what my colleagues have done in that respect.
Obviously I recognise that concern has been expressed, but I spoke to farmers before and immediately after Christmas, and more recently, and the number of concerns has dropped dramatically. In many parts of the country, farmers feel that the arrangements are working satisfactorily.

Mr. Pickles: Not in East Anglia.

Ms Quin: Waiting times are an important aspect of the debate. There is no waiting time in East Anglia at present for over-30-month cattle. I am glad of that and it is—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Twelve midnight.